A zero-inflated gamma model for post-deconvolved calcium imaging traces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Calcium imaging is a critical tool for measuring the activity of large neural populations. Much effort has been devoted to developing “pre-processing” tools applied to calcium video data, addressing the important issues of e.g. , motion correction, denoising, compression, demixing, and deconvolution. However, computational modeling of deconvolved calcium signals (i.e., the estimated activity extracted by a pre-processing pipeline) is just as critical for interpreting calcium measurements. Surprisingly, these issues have to date received significantly less attention. To fill this gap, we examine the statistical properties of the deconvolved activity estimates, and propose several density models for these random signals. These models include a zero-inflated gamma (ZIG) model, which characterizes the calcium responses as a mixture of a gamma distribution and a point mass which serves to model zero responses. We apply the resulting models to neural encoding and decoding problems. We find that the ZIG model out-performs simpler models (e.g., Poisson or Bernoulli models) in the context of both simulated and real neural data, and can therefore play a useful role in bridging calcium imaging analysis methods with tools for analyzing activity in large neural populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".