Uncertainty-Gated SHAP-Dirichlet Refinement for MRI-Based Depression Classification
Organizations: FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany · University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada
Abstract
Structural MRI-based classification of major depressive disorder (MDD) remains challenging due to subtle, heterogeneous anatomical changes. We propose uncertainty-gated SHAP-Dirichlet refinement, a post-hoc reliability layer that improves predictions without retraining the classifier. The method retrieves similar labeled SHAP explanations, constructs Dirichlet class evidence, and selectively refines uncertain predictions through probabilistic fusion, while allowing unreliable cases to be deferred for expert review. We evaluate five classifiers on 504 SRPBS subjects (252 controls and 252 MDD patients) using 159 anatomical features and repeated nested cross-validation. Refinement improved accuracy across all 8 repetitions for TabM and ResNet, yielding mean gains of 1.04 and 0.45 percentage points (sign test p=0.008), while modifying at most 8.3% of predictions. Gains were concentrated among low-confidence cases, with significant improvements in calibration. The method also benefited an RBF support vector machine but not logistic regression or random forests. Ablations confirmed the importance of uncertainty gating and soft fusion. Dirichlet evidence identified baseline errors (AUROC 0.62), while deferring 50% of cases increased retained-case accuracy to approximately 75%. These findings support selective explanation-guided refinement as a practical approach to improving prediction reliability and facilitating expert triage in MDD classification.
Figures & tables
| Classifier | Reps | Model | Accuracy | BAcc | MF1 | AUC | Brier | ECE | I/R | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TabM | 4 | Baseline | 64.24 | 64.24 | 64.19 | 70.92 | 0.2217 | 7.56 | ||
| Layer, val. bank | 64.29 (+0.05) | 64.29 (+0.05) | 64.25 (+0.05) | 70.84 ( 0.08) | 0.2196 | 7.52 | 2/4 | 0.95 | ||
| Layer, train+val. bank | 65.28 (+1.04) | 65.28 (+1.04) | 65.25 (+1.06) | 71.25 (+0.33) | 0.2181 | 6.24 | 4/4 | 0.38 | ||
| ResNet | 4 | Baseline | 63.74 | 63.74 | 63.71 | 70.00 | 0.2338 | 11.44 | ||
| Layer, val. bank | 64.24 (+0.50) | 64.24 (+0.50) | 64.22 (+0.51) | 69.24 ( 0.75) | 0.2300 | 8.11 | 3/4 | 0.65 | ||
| Layer, train+val. bank | 64.19 (+0.45) | 64.19 (+0.45) | 64.18 (+0.47) | 69.91 ( 0.09) | 0.2287 | 9.03 | 4/4 | 0.68 |
| TabM | ResNet | ||||
| Component | Variant | I/R | I/R | ||
| Correction | Hard flip | 0.45 | 1/4 | 0.35 | 0/4 |
| Hard or soft (validated) | +0.45 | 2/4 | +0.40 | 3/4 | |
| Soft fusion (ours) | +0.05 | 2/4 | +0.50 | 3/4 | |
| Gate | None | 0.74 | 1/4 | 0.20 | 1/4 |
| Random | 0.13 | 1/4 | +0.11 | 1/4 | |
| Classifier | Brier | ECE | NLL |
|---|---|---|---|
| TabM | 3.6 ∗ [ 6.2, 1.1] | 1.3 [ 2.5, 0.2] | 10.4 ∗ [ 18.2, 3.5] |
| ResNet | 5.1 ∗ [ 8.5, 1.9] | 2.4 ∗ [ 3.2, 0.7] | 16.2 ∗ [ 25.8, 7.4] |
| Logistic regression | 2.6 ∗ [ 5.0, 0.2] | 1.1 [ 3.1, 1.4] | 8.0 [ 19.0, 0.3] |
| RBF-SVM | 0.2 [ 2.6, 2.4] | +0.0 [ 2.2, 1.8] | +0.1 [ 5.7, 5.8] |
| Random forest | +0.9 [ 0.4, 2.3] | +0.2 [ 1.6, 1.9] | +1.9 [ 1.0, 4.9] |
| TabM | ResNet | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Space | Metric | Prec. | Acc. | AUC | Prec. | Acc. | AUC |
| Raw features | Cosine | 57.6 | 61.3 | 0.657 | 57.6 | 61.3 | 0.657 |
| Raw features | Pearson | 57.0 | 61.1 | 0.657 | 57.0 | 61.1 | 0.657 |
| Raw features | Euclidean | 56.2 | 60.2 | 0.650 | 56.2 | 60.2 | 0.650 |
| SHAP | Cosine | 58.1 | 62.3 | 0.668 | 58.7 | 62.5 | 0.674 |
| SHAP | Pearson | 57.4 | 61.2 | 0.657 | 57.9 | 62.2 | 0.662 |
| Score | TabM | ResNet |
|---|---|---|
| Low confidence | 0.648 (0.62–0.67) | 0.641 (0.62–0.67) |
| MC-dropout variance | 0.601 (0.58–0.63) | 0.628 (0.60–0.65) |
| RIS | 0.510 (0.48–0.54) | 0.522 (0.50–0.55) |
| ROS | 0.532 (0.51–0.56) | 0.496 (0.47–0.52) |
| SHAP-Dirichlet (Pearson) | 0.613 (0.59–0.64) | 0.618 (0.59–0.64) |
| SHAP-Dirichlet (Euclidean) | 0.612 (0.59–0.64) | 0.607 (0.58–0.63) |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Classifier | Fixed settings and searched values |
|---|---|
| TabM | PLE (20 bins), mini ensemble of 32 members, averaged ensemble outputs, no normalization. Layer sizes [128] or [256], dropout 0.1/0.2/0.3, learning rate / / / , weight decay / / (72 configurations). |
| ResNet | PLE (20 bins), layer normalization, skip connections. Two blocks [128, 64, 32] or three blocks [256, 128, 64], dropout 0.1/0.2/0.3, learning rate as for TabM, weight decay / / (72 configurations). |
| Logistic regression | Standardized features, L2 penalty, . |
| RBF-SVM | Standardized features, Platt-scaled probabilities, , . |
| Random forest | 300 trees, maximum depth , minimum leaf size , maximum features . |
| Classifier | Folds | Distinct | Mean SD | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TabM | 20 | 18 | 64.24 4.48 | 56.00–73.27 |
| ResNet | 20 | 18 | 63.74 3.42 | 56.00–69.00 |
| Logistic regression | 10 | 3 | 64.28 3.89 | 58.00–70.30 |
| RBF-SVM | 10 | 6 | 65.87 2.44 | 61.39–69.31 |
| Random forest | 10 | 6 | 66.28 3.08 | 61.39–70.00 |
| Val. bank | Train+val. bank | |||||||
| Model | Seed | Base | C/B | C/B | ||||
| TabM | 42 | 65.87 | +0.20 | 7/6 | 1.00 | +0.60 | 4/1 | 0.38 |
| TabM | 43 | 63.69 | +1.59 | 11/3 | 0.06 | +0.60 | 11/8 | 0.65 |
| TabM | 44 | 62.70 | 0.40 | 10/12 | 0.83 | +1.98 | 26/16 | 0.16 |
| TabM | 45 | 64.68 | 1.19 | 5/11 | 0.21 | +0.99 | 13/8 | 0.38 |
| ResNet | 42 | 63.10 | +0.40 | 14/12 | 0.85 | +0.40 | 19/17 | 0.87 |
| LogReg | SVM | RF | |||||
| Comp. | Variant | I/R | I/R | I/R | |||
| Correction | Hard flip | 0.10 | 0/2 | +0.30 | 1/2 | 0.99 | 0/2 |
| Hard or soft (validated) | 0.10 | 1/2 | +0.99 | 1/2 | 1.29 | 0/2 | |
| Soft fusion (ours) | 0.40 | 1/2 | +1.09 | 1/2 | 0.99 | 0/2 | |
| Gate | None | 0.89 | 1/2 | +0.40 | 1/2 | 1.29 | 0/2 |
| Random | +0.02 | 1/2 | +0.05 | 1/2 | 0.90 | 0/2 | |
Depression Detection
Depression detection uses language, behavior, speech, and biological signals to identify depressive symptoms and estimate their severity.
See all 76 papers