Improving Corticostriatal Parcellation Through Multilevel Bagging with PyBASC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the functional organization the brain is a centrally important theme of human neuroscience. Ideally, these organizational maps uncover the underlying structure of the brain's functional architecture, and group-level maps are accurate representations of the individuals in the sample. Using simulated fMRI data, we demonstrate that bagging improves the ability of clustering to uncover the data's underlying structure. We show that the group-level maps become more correlated to the individual-level maps with more bootstrap aggregates, suggesting bagging improves the representativeness of the group-level solution. Using a test-retest dataset of 30 young adults, we confirm these findings. More specifically, we see bagging improves the test-retest correlation between cluster maps, and increases correlation between group-level and individual-level cluster maps, and these effects are robust to number of clusters and length of scan used. These results suggest bagging is an important method for increasing reliability and validity of functional parcellation approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".