Understanding the impact of preprocessing pipelines on neuroimaging cortical surface analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of preprocessing pipeline introduces variability in neuroimaging analyses that affects the reproducibility of scientific findings. Features derived from structural and functional MR imaging data are sensitive to the algorithmic or parametric differences of preprocessing tasks, such as image normalization, registration, and segmentation to name a few. Therefore it is critical to understand and potentially mitigate the cumulative biases of pipelines in order to distinguish biological effects from methodological variance. Here we use an open structural MR imaging dataset (ABIDE), supplemented with the Human Connectome Project (HCP), to highlight the impact of pipeline selection on cortical thickness measures. Specifically, we investigate the effect of 1) software tool (e.g. ANTs, CIVET, FreeSurfer), 2) cortical parcellation (DKT, Destrieux, Glasser), and 3) quality control procedure (manual, automatic). We divide our statistical analyses by 1) method type, i.e. task-free (unsupervised) versus task-driven (supervised), and 2) inference objective, i.e. neurobiological group differences versus individual prediction. Results show that software, parcellation, and quality control significantly impact task-driven neurobiological inference. Additionally, software selection strongly impacts neurobiological and individual task-free analyses, and quality control alters the performance for the individual-centric prediction tasks. This comparative performance evaluation partially explains the source of inconsistencies in neuroimaging findings. Furthermore, it underscores the need for more rigorous scientific workflows and accessible informatics resources to replicate and compare preprocessing pipelines to address the compounding problem of reproducibility in the age of large-scale, data-driven computational neuroscience.
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 | 0.036 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".