Effects of Tissue-Specific Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Signal Regression on Resting-State Functional Connectivity
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
Neuroimaging studies typically consider white matter as unchanging in different neural and metabolic states. However, a recent study demonstrated that white matter signal regression (WMSR) produced a similar loss of neurometabolic information to global (whole-brain) signal regression (GSR) in resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (R-fMRI) data. This was unexpected as the loss of information would normally be attributed to neural activity within gray matter correlating with the global R-fMRI signal. Indeed, WMSR has been suggested as an alternative to avoid such pitfalls in GSR. To address these concerns about tissue-specific regression in R-fMRI data analysis, we performed GSR, WMSR, and gray matter signal regression (GMSR) on R-fMRI data from the 1000 Functional Connectomes Project. We describe several regional and motion-related differences between different types of regressions. However, the overall effects of concern, particularly network-specific alteration of correlation coefficients, are present for all regressions. This suggests that tissue-specific regression is not an adequate strategy to counter pitfalls of GSR. Conversely, if GSR is desired, but the studied disease state excludes either gray matter or white matter from analysis (e.g., due to tissue atrophy), our results indicate that WMSR or GMSR may reproduce the gross effects of GSR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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