Machine learning can easily produce false positives when the test set is wrongly used. Just et al in
@NatureHumBehav suggested that ML can identify suicidal ideation extremely well from fMRI and we were skeptical. Today retraction and our analysis of what went wrong came out.

Here is the retracted paper: https://nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0234-y and here is our refutation https://nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01560-6. If true, the paper's approach could revolutionize psychiatric approaches to suicide.

So what went wrong? The authors apparently used the test data to select features. Obvious mistake. A reminder for everyone into ML: never use the test set for *anything* but testing. Only practical way to do so in medicine? Lock away the test set till algorithm is registered.

Side note: it took 3 years to go through the process of demonstrating that the paper went wrong. Journals need procedures to accelerate this. Also, all the good things of this were by
@tdverstynen

@kordinglab @tdverstynen
I don't know exactly the test design and the data material for this experiment either ;-).

A relatively well documented study that you may also be aware of is "AI re-creates what people see by reading their brain scans" (7 Mar 2023) https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-re-creates-what-people-see-reading-their-brain-scans.

AI re-creates what people see by reading their brain scans

A new artificial intelligence system can reconstruct images a person saw based on their brain activity