Bayesian Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data with Spatially Varying Auto-Regressive Orders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Statistical modelling of functional magnetic resonance imaging data is challenging as the data are both spatially and temporally correlated. Spatially, measurements are taken at thousands of contiguous regions, called voxels, and temporally measurements are taken at hundreds of time points at each voxel. Recent advances in Bayesian hierarchical modelling have addressed the challenges of spatiotemporal structure in functional magnetic resonance imaging data with models incorporating both spatial and temporal priors for signal and noise. Whereas there has been extensive research on modelling the functional magnetic resonance imaging signal (i.e. the convolution of the experimental design with the functional choice for the haemodynamic response function) and its spatial variability, less attention has been paid to realistic modelling of the temporal dependence that typically exists within the functional magnetic resonance imaging noise, where a low order auto-regressive process is typically adopted. Furthermore, the auto-regressive order is held constant across voxels (e.g. AR(1) at each voxel). Motivated by an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment, we propose a novel hierarchical Bayesian model with automatic selection of the auto-regressive orders of the noise process that vary spatially over the brain. With simulation studies we show that our model is more statistically efficient and we apply it to our motivating example.
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 | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".