Data warehousing methods and processing infrastructure for brain recovery research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to accelerate translational neuroscience with the goal of improving clinical care it has become important to support rapid accumulation and analysis of large, heterogeneous neuroimaging samples and their metadata from both normal control and patient groups. We propose a multi-centre, multinational approach to accelerate the data mining of large samples and facilitate data-led clinical translation of neuroimaging results in stroke. Such data-driven approaches are likely to have an early impact on clinically relevant brain recovery while we simultaneously pursue the much more challenging model-based approaches that depend on a deep understanding of the complex neural circuitry and physiological processes that support brain function and recovery. We present a brief overview of three (potentially converging) approaches to neuroimaging data warehousing and processing that aim to support these diverse methods for facilitating prediction of cognitive and behavioral recovery after stroke, or other types of brain injury or disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".