Neuroimaging: into the Multiverse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract For most neuroimaging questions the huge range of possible analytic choices leads to the possibility that conclusions from any single analytic approach may be misleading. Examples of possible choices include the motion regression approach used and smoothing and threshold factors applied during the processing pipeline. Although it is possible to perform a multiverse analysis that evaluates all possible analytic choices, this can be computationally challenging and repeated sequential analyses on the same data can compromise inferential and predictive power. Here, we establish how active learning on a low-dimensional space that captures the inter-relationships between analysis approaches can be used to efficiently approximate the whole multiverse of analyses. This approach balances the benefits of a multiverse analysis without the accompanying cost to statistical power, computational power and the integrity of inferences. We illustrate this approach with a functional MRI dataset of functional connectivity across adolescence, demonstrating how a multiverse of graph theoretic and simple pre-processing steps can be efficiently navigated using active learning. Our study shows how this approach can identify the subset of analysis techniques (i.e., pipelines) which are best able to predict participants’ ages, as well as allowing the performance of different approaches to be quantified.
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 | 0.019 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".