MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multivariate Statistical Analyses for Neuroimaging Data

2012· review· en· W2151669887 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony R. McIntosh, Bratislav Mišić

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Psychology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsNeuroimagingMultivariate analysisStatistical inferenceFocus (optics)InferenceData sciencePsychologyTaxonomy (biology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningCognitive scienceNeuroscienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the focus of neuroscience shifts from studying individual brain regions to entire networks of regions, methods for statistical inference have also become geared toward network analysis. The purpose of the present review is to survey the multivariate statistical techniques that have been used to study neural interactions. We have selected the most common techniques and developed a taxonomy that instructively reflects their assumptions and practical use. For each family of analyses, we describe their application and the types of experimental questions they can address, as well as how they relate to other analyses both conceptually and mathematically. We intend to show that despite their diversity, all of these techniques offer complementary information about the functional architecture of the brain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.529
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.052 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations294
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of PsychologySame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207