Consistency of magnetoencephalographic functional connectivity and network reconstruction using a template versus native M<scp>RI</scp> for co‐registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies using functional connectivity and network analyses based on magnetoencephalography (MEG) with source localization are rapidly emerging in neuroscientific literature. However, these analyses currently depend on the availability of costly and sometimes burdensome individual MR scans for co-registration. We evaluated the consistency of these measures when using a template MRI, instead of native MRI, for the analysis of functional connectivity and network topology. METHODS: Seventeen healthy participants underwent resting-state eyes-closed MEG and anatomical MRI. These data were projected into source space using an atlas-based peak voxel and a centroid beamforming approach either using (1) participants' native MRIs or (2) the Montreal Neurological Institute's template. For both methods, time series were reconstructed from 78 cortical atlas regions. Relative power was determined in six classical frequency bands per region and globally averaged. Functional connectivity (phase lag index) between each pair of regions was calculated. The adjacency matrices were then used to reconstruct functional networks, of which regional and global metrics were determined. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated and Bland-Altman plots were made to quantify the consistency and potential bias of the use of template versus native MRI. RESULTS: Co-registration with the template yielded largely consistent relative power, connectivity, and network estimates compared to native MRI. DISCUSSION: These findings indicate that there is no (systematic) bias or inconsistency between template and native MRI co-registration of MEG. They open up possibilities for retrospective and prospective analyses to MEG datasets in the general population that have no native MRIs available. Hum Brain Mapp, 2017. © 2017 The Authors Human Brain Mapping Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Hum Brain Mapp 39:104-119, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".