A mutual information‐based metric for evaluation of fMRI data‐processing approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a novel approach for evaluating the performance of activation detection in real (experimental) datasets using a new mutual information (MI)-based metric and compare its sensitivity to several existing performance metrics in both simulated and real datasets. The proposed approach is based on measuring the approximate MI between the fMRI time-series of a validation dataset and a calculated activation map (thresholded label map or continuous map) from an independent training dataset. The MI metric is used to measure the amount of information preserved during the extraction of an activation map from experimentally related fMRI time-series. The processing method that preserves maximal information between the maps and related time-series is proposed to be superior. The results on simulation datasets for multiple analysis models are consistent with the results of ROC curves, but are shown to have lower information content than for real datasets, limiting their generalizability. In real datasets for group analyses using the general linear model (GLM; FSL4 and SPM5), we show that MI values are (1) larger for groups of 15 versus 10 subjects and (2) more sensitive measures than reproducibility (for continuous maps) or Jaccard overlap metrics (for thresholded maps). We also show that (1) for an increasing fraction of nominally active voxels, both MI and false discovery rate (FDR) increase, and (2) at a fixed FDR, GLM using FSL4 tends to extract more voxels and more information than SPM5 using the default processing techniques in each package.
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 | 0.025 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".