Time series analysis of fMRI data: Spatial modelling and Bayesian computation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time series analysis of fMRI data is an important area of medical statistics for neuroimaging data. Spatial models and Bayesian approaches for inference in such models have advantages over more traditional mass univariate approaches; however, a major challenge for such analyses is the required computation. As a result, the neuroimaging community has embraced approximate Bayesian inference based on mean-field variational Bayes (VB) approximations. These approximations are implemented in standard software packages such as the popular statistical parametric mapping software. While computationally efficient, the quality of VB approximations remains unclear even though they are commonly used in the analysis of neuroimaging data. For reliable statistical inference, it is important that these approximations be accurate and that users understand the scenarios under which they may not be accurate. We consider this issue for a particular model that includes spatially varying coefficients. To examine the accuracy of the VB approximation, we derive Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) for this model and conduct simulation studies to compare its performance with VB in terms of estimation accuracy, posterior variability, the spatial smoothness of estimated images, and computation time. As expected, we find that the computation time required for VB is considerably less than that for HMC. In settings involving a high or moderate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), we find that the 2 approaches produce very similar results suggesting that the VB approximation is useful in this setting. On the other hand, when one considers a low SNR, substantial differences are found, suggesting that the approximation may not be accurate in such cases and we demonstrate that VB produces Bayes estimators with larger mean squared error. A comparison of the 2 computational approaches in an application examining the hemodynamic response to face perception in addition to a comparison with the traditional mass univariate approach in this application is also considered. Overall, our work clarifies the usefulness of VB for the spatiotemporal analysis of fMRI data, while also pointing out the limitation of VB when the SNR is low and the utility of HMC in this case.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".