Guidelines for the content and format of PET brain data in publications and archives: A consensus paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a growing concern that outcomes of neuroimaging studies often cannot be replicated. To counteract this, the magnetic resonance (MR) neuroimaging community has promoted acquisition standards and created data sharing platforms, based on a consensus on how to organize and share MR neuroimaging data. Here, we take a similar approach to positron emission tomography (PET) data. To facilitate comparison of findings across studies, we first recommend publication standards for tracer characteristics, image acquisition, image preprocessing, and outcome estimation for PET neuroimaging data. The co-authors of this paper, representing more than 25 PET centers worldwide, voted to classify information as mandatory, recommended, or optional. Second, we describe a framework to facilitate data archiving and data sharing within and across centers. Because of the high cost of PET neuroimaging studies, sample sizes tend to be small and relatively few sites worldwide have the required multidisciplinary expertise to properly conduct and analyze PET studies. Data sharing will make it easier to combine datasets from different centers to achieve larger sample sizes and stronger statistical power to test hypotheses. The combining of datasets from different centers may be enhanced by adoption of a common set of best practices in data acquisition and analysis.
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 | 0.335 | 0.473 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.033 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".