MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952906091 · doi:10.1038/sdata.2014.54

A high resolution 7-Tesla resting-state fMRI test-retest dataset with cognitive and physiological measures

2015· article· en· W2952906091 on OpenAlexaff
Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski, Natacha Mendes, Domenica Wilfling, Elisabeth Wladimirow, Claudine Gauthier, Tyler Bonnen, Florence J. M. Ruby, Robert Trampel, Pierre‐Louis Bazin, Roberto Cozatl, Jonathan Smallwood, Daniel S. Margulies

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersMax-Planck-Gesellschaft
KeywordsResting state fMRIFunctional magnetic resonance imagingCognitionPrefrontal cortexSession (web analytics)PsychologyAudiologyComputer scienceNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we present a test-retest dataset of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data acquired at rest. 22 participants were scanned during two sessions spaced one week apart. Each session includes two 1.5 mm isotropic whole-brain scans and one 0.75 mm isotropic scan of the prefrontal cortex, giving a total of six time-points. Additionally, the dataset includes measures of mood, sustained attention, blood pressure, respiration, pulse, and the content of self-generated thoughts (mind wandering). This data enables the investigation of sources of both intra- and inter-session variability not only limited to physiological changes, but also including alterations in cognitive and affective states, at high spatial resolution. The dataset is accompanied by a detailed experimental protocol and source code of all stimuli used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.234
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.086 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207