MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791343556 · doi:10.1101/277590

Subject-specificity of the correlation between large-scale structural and functional connectivity

2018· preprint· en· W2791343556 on OpenAlexafffund
Joelle Zimmermann, John D. Griffiths, Michael Schirner, Petra Ritter, Anthony R. McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersNIH Blueprint for Neuroscience ResearchEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthMcDonnell Center for Systems NeuroscienceStiftung Charité
KeywordsPreprocessorCorrelationSubject (documents)NeuroimagingFunctional connectivityRelation (database)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceScale (ratio)ModalArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPsychologyData miningNeuroscienceCartographyGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Structural connectivity (SC), the physical pathways connecting regions in the brain, and functional connectivity (FC), the temporal co-activations, are known to be tightly linked. However, the nature of this relationship is still not understood. In the present study, we examined this relation more closely in six separate human neuroimaging datasets with different acquisition and preprocessing methods. We show that using simple linear associations, the relation between an individual’s SC and FC is not subject-specific for five of the datasets. Subject-specificity of SC-FC fit is achieved only for one of the six datasets, the multi-modal Glasser HCP parcellated dataset. We show that subject-specificity of SC-FC correspondence is limited across datasets due to relatively small variability between subjects in SC compared to the larger variability in FC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207