Different preprocessing strategies lead to different conclusions: A [ <sup>11</sup> C]DASB-PET reproducibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) neuroimaging provides unique possibilities to study biological processes in vivo under basal and interventional conditions. For quantification of PET data, researchers commonly apply different arrays of sequential data analytic methods (“preprocessing pipeline”), but it is often unknown how the choice of preprocessing affects the final outcome. Here, we use an available data set from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled [ 11 C]DASB-PET study as a case to evaluate how the choice of preprocessing affects the outcome of the study. We tested the impact of 384 commonly used preprocessing strategies on a previously reported positive association between the change from baseline in neocortical serotonin transporter binding determined with [ 11 C]DASB-PET, and change in depressive symptoms, following a pharmacological sex hormone manipulation intervention in 30 women. The two preprocessing steps that were most critical for the outcome were motion correction and kinetic modeling of the dynamic PET data. We found that 36% of the applied preprocessing strategies replicated the originally reported finding ( p < 0.05). For preprocessing strategies with motion correction, the replication percentage was 72%, whereas it was 0% for strategies without motion correction. In conclusion, the choice of preprocessing strategy can have a major impact on a study outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".