MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099167610 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2007.896928

Effect of Spatial Alignment Transformations in PCA and ICA of Functional Neuroimages

2007· article· en· W2099167610 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Lukić, Miles N. Wernick, Yongyi Yang, Lars Kai Hansen, Konstantinos Arfanakis, Stephen C. Strother

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsIndependent component analysisSpatial normalizationPrincipal component analysisNormalization (sociology)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingSpatial reference systemComputer visionImage resolutionNeuroscienceVoxelPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been previously observed that independent component analysis (ICA), if applied to data pooled in a particular way, may lessen the need for spatial alignment of scans in a functional neuroimaging study. In this paper, we seek to determine analytically the conditions under which this observation is true, not only for spatial ICA, but also for temporal ICA and for principal component analysis (PCA). In each case, we find conditions that the spatial alignment operator must satisfy to ensure invariance of the results. We illustrate our findings using functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI) data. Our analysis is applicable to both intersubject and intrasubject spatial normalization.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207