Statistical agnostic mapping: a framework in neuroimaging based on concentration inequalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In the 70s a novel branch of statistics emerged focusing its effort in selecting a function in the pattern recognition problem, which fulfils a definite relationship between the quality of the approximation and its complexity. These data-driven approaches are mainly devoted to problems of estimating dependencies with limited sample sizes and comprise all the empirical out-of sample generalization approaches, e.g. cross validation (CV) approaches. Although the latter are not designed for testing competing hypothesis or comparing different models in neuroimaging, there are a number of theoretical developments within this theory which could be employed to derive a Statistical Agnostic (non-parametric) Mapping (SAM) at voxel or multi-voxel level. Moreover, SAMs could relieve i) the problem of instability in limited sample sizes when estimating the actual risk via the CV approaches, e.g. large error bars, and provide ii) an alternative way of Family-wise-error (FWE) corrected p-value maps in inferential statistics for hypothesis testing. In this sense, we propose a novel framework in neuroimaging based on concentration inequalities, which results in (i) a rigorous development for model validation with a small sample/dimension ratio, and (ii) a less-conservative procedure than FWE p-value correction, to determine the brain significance maps from the inferences made using small upper bounds of the actual risk.
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 | 0.016 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".