MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficient Blockwise Permutation Tests Preserving Exchangeability

2014· article· en· W2031037082 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chunxiao Zhou, Christopher E. Zwilling, Vince D. Calhoun, Michelle Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Social Security Administration
KeywordsPermutation (music)StatisticTest statisticResamplingSet (abstract data type)AlgorithmMathematicsVoxelData setRandom permutationComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceBlock (permutation group theory)Statistical hypothesis testingData miningStatisticsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a new blockwise permutation test approach based on the moments of the test statistic. The method is of importance to neuroimaging studies. In order to preserve the exchangeability condition required in permutation tests, we divide the entire set of data into certain exchangeability blocks. In addition, computationally efficient moments-based permutation tests are performed by approximating the permutation distribution of the test statistic with the Pearson distribution series. This involves the calculation of the first four moments of the permutation distribution within each block and then over the entire set of data. The accuracy and efficiency of the proposed method are demonstrated through simulated experiment on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain data, specifically the multi-site voxel-based morphometry analysis from structural MRI (sMRI).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207