Joint Spatial Denoising and Active Region of Interest Delineation in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In region of interest (ROI) based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) group analysis, errors in delineation of an ROI or inclusion of non-active voxels within an ROI can bias the statistical results. Addressing these concerns, this paper presents a new fMRI processing method that simultaneously refines ROI delineation and spatially denoises fMRI activation statistics within the ROI. The underlying assumption is that activation statistics within a small neighborhood are spatially correlated, thereby exhibit similar levels of influence on the overall ROI's response. Based on this assumption, we first identify outlier voxels as those having undue influence on an ROI's feature. Isolated outlier voxels at region boundaries are then removed, thereby refining the ROI delineation. The remaining outlier voxels are de-weighted based on their influence relative to their neighbors to reduce the effects of voxels deemed falsely active in later analysis. The proposed method was tested on real fMRI data collected from 8 healthy subjects performing a bulb-squeezing motor task at various frequencies. Using the proposed method, enhanced capability for detection of frequency-related activation map feature differences (AMFD) was demonstrated when compared to Gaussian spatial smoothing of ROI activation statistics. The validity of the proposed method is suggested by the fact that using one feature for denoising (e.g. spatial variance) results in greater effect size in another feature (e.g. average activation statistics magnitude). Our results demonstrate the importance of accurate ROI delineation in ROI-based fMRI analysis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".