Best Practices in Data Analysis and Sharing in Neuroimaging using MRI
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Neuroimaging enables rich noninvasive measurements of human brain activity, but translating such data into neuroscientific insights and clinical applications requires complex analyses and collaboration among a diverse array of researchers. The open science movement is reshaping scientific culture and addressing the challenges of transparency and reproducibility of research. To advance open science in neuroimaging the Organization for Human Brain Mapping created the Committee on Best Practice in Data Analysis and Sharing (COBIDAS), charged with creating a report that collects best practice recommendations from experts and the entire brain imaging community. The purpose of this work is to elaborate the principles of open and reproducible research for neuroimaging using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and then distill these principles to specific research practices. Many elements of a study are so varied that practice cannot be prescribed, but for these areas we detail the information that must be reported to fully understand and potentially replicate a study. For other elements of a study, like statistical modelling where specific poor practices can be identified, and the emerging areas of data sharing and reproducibility, we detail both good practice and reporting standards. For each of seven areas of a study we provide tabular listing of over 100 items to help plan, execute, report and share research in the most transparent fashion. Whether for individual scientists, or for editors and reviewers, we hope these guidelines serve as a benchmark, to raise the standards of practice and reporting in neuroimaging using MRI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it