MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128390230 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1652

Inferring causality in brain images: a perturbation approach

2005· review· en· W2128390230 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationFunctional magnetic resonance imagingStimulus (psychology)NeurosciencePositron emission tomographyCausality (physics)Computer scienceHuman brainNeuroimagingElectroencephalographyArtificial intelligencePsychologyCognitive psychologyPhysicsStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When engaged by a stimulus, different nodes of a neural circuit respond in a coordinated fashion. We often ask whether there is a cause and effect in such interregional interactions. This paper proposes that we can infer causality in functional connectivity by employing a 'perturb and measure' approach. In the human brain, this has been achieved by combining transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with positron emission tomography (PET), functional magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalography. Here, I will illustrate this approach by reviewing some of our TMS/PET work, and will conclude by discussing a few methodological and theoretical challenges facing those studying neural connectivity using a perturbation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.244
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.135 · 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