Increasing the effect size in event-related fMRI studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Independent component analysis (ICA) has proved to be a powerful method for exploratory analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. It has been used to uncover unexpected activations in fMRI data derived from brain activation. ICA has been used to characterize other sources of variability in the fMRI signal besides task-related activity, as well as challenging some of the assumptions inherent in other fMRI analysis methods. As a data-driven fMRI analysis technique, the philosophy of ICA is often in disagreement with hypothesis-driven methods. By exploiting the fact that much of fMRI data has deterministic spatial-temporal structure, a scheme employing ICA denoising and least squares (LS) estimation of the evoked hemodynamic response (HDR) is proposed. Simulations suggest that the method is more robust to different noise models compared to naive application of LS. The result is a considerably increased level of significance of activation for a given voxel but still qualitatively similar spatial distribution of activations over all voxels. This suggests that the proposed method has the potential to substantially reduce total scanning time requirements to achieve the same level of statistically significant activation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".