Improving fMRI reliability in presurgical mapping for brain tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Functional MRI (fMRI) is becoming increasingly integrated into clinical practice for presurgical mapping. Current efforts are focused on validating data quality, with reliability being a major factor. In this paper, we demonstrate the utility of a recently developed approach that uses receiver operating characteristic-reliability (ROC-r) to: (1) identify reliable versus unreliable data sets; (2) automatically select processing options to enhance data quality; and (3) automatically select individualised thresholds for activation maps. METHODS: Presurgical fMRI was conducted in 16 patients undergoing surgical treatment for brain tumours. Within-session test-retest fMRI was conducted, and ROC-reliability of the patient group was compared to a previous healthy control cohort. Individually optimised preprocessing pipelines were determined to improve reliability. Spatial correspondence was assessed by comparing the fMRI results to intraoperative cortical stimulation mapping, in terms of the distance to the nearest active fMRI voxel. RESULTS: The average ROC-r reliability for the patients was 0.58±0.03, as compared to 0.72±0.02 in healthy controls. For the patient group, this increased significantly to 0.65±0.02 by adopting optimised preprocessing pipelines. Co-localisation of the fMRI maps with cortical stimulation was significantly better for more reliable versus less reliable data sets (8.3±0.9 vs 29±3 mm, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated ROC-r analysis for identifying reliable fMRI data sets, choosing optimal postprocessing pipelines, and selecting patient-specific thresholds. Data sets with higher reliability also showed closer spatial correspondence to cortical stimulation. ROC-r can thus identify poor fMRI data at time of scanning, allowing for repeat scans when necessary. ROC-r analysis provides optimised and automated fMRI processing for improved presurgical mapping.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".