Stable between‐subject statistical inference from unstable within‐subject functional connectivity estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial or temporal aspects of neural organization are known to be important indices of how cognition is organized. However, measurements and estimations are often noisy and many of the algorithms used are probabilistic, which in combination have been argued to limit studies exploring the neural basis of specific aspects of cognition. Focusing on static and dynamic functional connectivity estimations, we propose to leverage this variability to improve statistical efficiency in relating these estimations to behavior. To achieve this goal, we use a procedure based on permutation testing that provides a way of combining the results from many individual tests that refer to the same hypothesis. This is needed when testing a measure whose value is obtained from a noisy process, which can be repeated multiple times, referred to as replications. Focusing on functional connectivity, this noisy process can be: (a) computational, for example, when using an approximate inference algorithm for which different runs can produce different results or (b) observational, if we have the capacity to acquire data multiple times, and the different acquired data sets can be considered noisy examples of some underlying truth. In both cases, we are not interested in the individual replications but on the unobserved process generating each replication. In this note, we show how results can be combined instead of choosing just one of the estimated models. Using both simulations and real data, we show the benefits of this approach in practice.
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 | 0.055 | 0.239 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".