Motivation and synthesis of the FIAC experiment: Reproducibility of fMRI results across expert analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Functional Imaging Analysis Contest (FIAC) culminated in the FIAC Workshop held at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping in Toronto in 2005. This special issue summarizes various analyses used by contestants with a single functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, a cortical-language study using sentence repetition. The results from the cognitive neuroscientists who developed the test-base language study, and report their data analysis, are complemented by expert analyses of the same test-base data by most of the major groups actively developing fMRI software packages. Analyses include many variants of the general linear model (GLM), cutting-edge spatial- and temporal-wavelets, permutation-based, and ICA approaches. A number of authors also include surface-based approaches. Several articles describe the important emerging areas of diagnostics for GLM analysis, multivariate predictive modeling, and functional connectivity analysis. While the FIAC did not achieve all of its goals, it helped identify new activation regions in the test-base data, and more important, through this special issue it illustrates the significant methods-driven variability that potentially exists in the literature. Variable results from different methods reported here should provide a cautionary note and motivate the Human Brain Mapping community to explore more thoroughly the methodologies they use for analyzing fMRI data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".