A Bayesian Hierarchical Correlation Model for fMRI Cluster Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data-driven cluster analysis is potentially suitable to search for, and discriminate between, distinct response signals in blood oxygenation level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging (BOLD fMRI), which appear during cerebrovascular disease. In contrast to model-driven methods, which test for a particular BOLD signal whose shape must be given beforehand, data-driven methods generate a set of BOLD signals directly from the fMRI data by clustering voxels into groups with correlated time signals. Here, we address the problem of selecting only the clusters that represent genuine responses to the experimental stimulus by modeling the correlation structure of the clustered data using a Bayesian hierarchical model. The model is empirically justified by demonstrating the hierarchical organization of the voxel correlations after cluster analysis. BOLD signal discrimination is demonstrated using: 1) simulations that contain multiple pathological BOLD response signals; and 2) fMRI data acquired during an event-related motor task. These demonstrations are compared with results from a model-driven method based on the general linear model. Our simulations show that the data-driven method can discriminate between the BOLD response signals, while the model-driven method only finds one signal. For fMRI, the data-driven method distinguishes between the BOLD signals appearing in the sensorimotor cortex and those in basal ganglia and putamen, while the model-driven method combines these signals into one activation map. We conclude that the proposed data-driven method provides an objective framework to identify and discriminate between distinct BOLD response signals.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".