Applying machine learning methods to avalanche forecasting

Avalanche forecasting is a complex process involving the assimilation of multiple data sources to make predictions over varying spatial and temporal resolutions. Numerically assisted forecasting often uses nearest neighbour methods (NN), which are known to have limitations when dealing with high dimensional data. We apply Support Vector Machines to a dataset from Lochaber, Scotland to assess their applicability in avalanche forecasting. Support Vector Machines (SVMs) belong to a family of theoretically based techniques from machine learning and are designed to deal with high dimensional data. Initial experiments showed that SVMs gave results which were comparable with NN for categorical and probabilistic forecasts. Experiments utilising the ability of SVMs to deal with high dimensionality in producing a spatial forecast show promise, but require further work.

Individual prediction of cognitive decline in mild cognitive impairment using support vector machine-based analysis of diffusion tensor imaging data.

Although cross-sectional diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) studies revealed significant white matter changes in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the utility of this technique in predicting further cognitive decline is debated. Thirty-five healthy controls (HC) and 67 MCI subjects with DTI baseline data were neuropsychologically assessed at one year. Among them, there were 40 stable (sMCI; 9 single domain amnestic, 7 single domain frontal, 24 multiple domain) and 27 were progressive (pMCI; 7 single domain amnestic, 4 single domain frontal, 16 multiple domain). Fractional anisotropy (FA) and longitudinal, radial, and mean diffusivity were measured using Tract-Based Spatial Statistics. Statistics included group comparisons and individual classification of MCI cases using support vector machines (SVM). FA was significantly higher in HC compared to MCI in a distributed network including the ventral part of the corpus callosum, right temporal and frontal pathways. There were no significant group-level differences between sMCI versus pMCI or between MCI subtypes after correction for multiple comparisons. However, SVM analysis allowed for an individual classification with accuracies up to 91.4% (HC versus MCI) and 98.4% (sMCI versus pMCI). When considering the MCI subgroups separately, the minimum SVM classification accuracy for stable versus progressive cognitive decline was 97.5% in the multiple domain MCI group. SVM analysis of DTI data provided highly accurate individual classification of stable versus progressive MCI regardless of MCI subtype, indicating that this method may become an easily applicable tool for early individual detection of MCI subjects evolving to dementia.