MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bayesian longitudinal low-rank regression models for imaging genetic data from longitudinal studies

2017· article· en· W2581851498 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyIXICONational Institute of General Medical SciencesH. Lundbeck A/SNational Cancer InstituteServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerBiogenBioClinicaGE HealthcareAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsF. Hoffmann-La RocheGenentechCancer Prevention and Research Institute of TexasNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbRocheMerckAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationAbbVieAlzheimer's AssociationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloBayesian probabilityComputer scienceMultivariate statisticsImaging geneticsNeuroimagingArtificial intelligenceRegressionSingle-nucleotide polymorphismRandom effects modelPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningStatisticsMathematicsBiologyGeneticsMedicineGeneNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.375
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.095 · 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