Semantically defined subdomains of functional neuroimaging literature and their corresponding brain regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functional neuroimaging literature has become increasingly complex and thus difficult to navigate. This complexity arises from the rate at which new studies are published and from the terminology that varies widely from study-to-study and even more so from discipline-to-discipline. One way to investigate and manage this problem is to build a "semantic space" that maps the different vocabulary used in functional neuroimaging literature. Such a semantic space will also help identify the primary research domains of neuroimaging and their most commonly reported brain regions. In this work, we analyzed the multivariate semantic structure of abstracts in Neurosynth and found that there are six primary domains of the functional neuroimaging literature, each with their own preferred reported brain regions. Our analyses also highlight possible semantic sources of reported brain regions within and across domains because some research topics (e.g., memory disorders, substance use disorder) use heterogeneous terminology. Furthermore, we highlight the growth and decline of the primary domains over time. Finally, we note that our techniques and results form the basis of a "recommendation engine" that could help readers better navigate the neuroimaging literature.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".