Searching for the best model: ambiguity of inverse solutions and application to fetal magnetoencephalography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fetal brain signals produce weak magnetic fields at the maternal abdominal surface. In the presence of much stronger interference these weak fetal fields are often nearly indistinguishable from noise. Our initial objective was to validate these weak fetal brain fields by demonstrating that they agree with the electromagnetic model of the fetal brain. The fetal brain model is often not known and we have attempted to fit the data to not only the brain source position, orientation and magnitude, but also to the brain model position. Simulation tests of this extended model search on fetal MEG recordings using dipole fit and beamformers revealed a region of ambiguity. The region of ambiguity consists of a family of models which are not distinguishable in the presence of noise, and which exhibit large and comparable SNR when beamformers are used. Unlike the uncertainty of a dipole fit with known model plus noise, this extended ambiguity region yields nearly identical forward solutions, and is only weakly dependent on noise. The ambiguity region is located in a plane defined by the source position, orientation, and the true model centre, and will have a diameter approximately 0.67 of the modelled fetal head diameter. Existence of the ambiguity region allows us to only state that the fetal brain fields do not contradict the electromagnetic model; we can associate them with a family of models belonging to the ambiguity region, but not with any specific model. In addition to providing a level of confidence in the fetal brain signals, the ambiguity region knowledge in combination with beamformers allows detection of undistorted temporal waveforms with improved signal-to-noise ratio, even though the source position cannot be uniquely determined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".