Parcellating an Individual Subject's Cortical and Subcortical Brain Structures Using Snowball Sampling of Resting-State Correlations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe methods for parcellating an individual subject's cortical and subcortical brain structures using resting-state functional correlations (RSFCs). Inspired by approaches from social network analysis, we first describe the application of snowball sampling on RSFC data (RSFC-Snowballing) to identify the centers of cortical areas, subdivisions of subcortical nuclei, and the cerebellum. RSFC-Snowballing parcellation is then compared with parcellation derived from identifying locations where RSFC maps exhibit abrupt transitions (RSFC-Boundary Mapping). RSFC-Snowballing and RSFC-Boundary Mapping largely complement one another, but also provide unique parcellation information; together, the methods identify independent entities with distinct functional correlations across many cortical and subcortical locations in the brain. RSFC parcellation is relatively reliable within a subject scanned across multiple days, and while the locations of many area centers and boundaries appear to exhibit considerable overlap across subjects, there is also cross-subject variability-reinforcing the motivation to parcellate brains at the level of individuals. Finally, examination of a large meta-analysis of task-evoked functional magnetic resonance imaging data reveals that area centers defined by task-evoked activity exhibit correspondence with area centers defined by RSFC-Snowballing. This observation provides important evidence for the ability of RSFC to parcellate broad expanses of an individual's brain into functionally meaningful units.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".