Exploring predictive and reproducible modeling with the single‐subject FIAC dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictive modeling of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has the potential to expand the amount of information extracted and to enhance our understanding of brain systems by predicting brain states, rather than emphasizing the standard spatial mapping. Based on the block datasets of Functional Imaging Analysis Contest (FIAC) Subject 3, we demonstrate the potential and pitfalls of predictive modeling in fMRI analysis by investigating the performance of five models (linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression, linear support vector machine, Gaussian naive Bayes, and a variant) as a function of preprocessing steps and feature selection methods. We found that: (1) independent of the model, temporal detrending and feature selection assisted in building a more accurate predictive model; (2) the linear support vector machine and logistic regression often performed better than either of the Gaussian naive Bayes models in terms of the optimal prediction accuracy; and (3) the optimal prediction accuracy obtained in a feature space using principal components was typically lower than that obtained in a voxel space, given the same model and same preprocessing. We show that due to the existence of artifacts from different sources, high prediction accuracy alone does not guarantee that a classifier is learning a pattern of brain activity that might be usefully visualized, although cross-validation methods do provide fairly unbiased estimates of true prediction accuracy. The trade-off between the prediction accuracy and the reproducibility of the spatial pattern should be carefully considered in predictive modeling of fMRI. We suggest that unless the experimental goal is brain-state classification of new scans on well-defined spatial features, prediction alone should not be used as an optimization procedure in fMRI data analysis.
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".