Animal Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Trends and Path Toward Standardization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal whole-brain functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) provides a non-invasive window into brain activity. A collection of associated methods aims to replicate observations made in humans and to identify the mechanisms underlying the distributed neuronal activity in the healthy and disordered brain. Animal fMRI studies have developed rapidly over the past years, fueled by the development of resting-state fMRI connectivity and genetically encoded neuromodulatory tools. Yet, comparisons between sites remain hampered by lack of standardization. Recently, we highlighted that mouse resting-state functional connectivity converges across centers, although large discrepancies in sensitivity and specificity remained. Here, we explore past and present trends within the animal fMRI community and highlight critical aspects in study design, data acquisition, and post-processing operations, that may affect the results and influence the comparability between studies. We also suggest practices aimed to promote the adoption of standards within the community and improve between-lab reproducibility. The implementation of standardized animal neuroimaging protocols will facilitate animal population imaging efforts as well as meta-analysis and replication studies, the gold standards in evidence-based science.
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 | 0.039 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".