Subject‐level reliability analysis of fast fMRI with application to epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent studies have applied the new magnetic resonance encephalography (MREG) sequence to the study of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) in the electroencephalogram (EEG) of epileptic patients. However, there are no criteria to quantitatively evaluate different processing methods, to properly use the new sequence. METHODS: We evaluated different processing steps of this new sequence under the common generalized linear model (GLM) framework by assessing the reliability of results. A bootstrap sampling technique was first used to generate multiple replicated data sets; a GLM with different processing steps was then applied to obtain activation maps, and the reliability of these maps was assessed. RESULTS: We applied our analysis in an event-related GLM related to IEDs. A higher reliability was achieved by using a GLM with head motion confound regressor with 24 components rather than the usual 6, with an autoregressive model of order 5 and with a canonical hemodynamic response function (HRF) rather than variable latency or patient-specific HRFs. Comparison of activation with IED field also favored the canonical HRF, consistent with the reliability analysis. CONCLUSION: The reliability analysis helps to optimize the processing methods for this fast fMRI sequence, in a context in which we do not know the ground truth of activation areas. Magn Reson Med 78:370-382, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
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 | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".