SS‐Detect: Development and Validation of a New Strategy for Source‐Based Morphometry in Multiscanner Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Source-based morphometry(SBM) has been used in multicenter studies pooling magnetic resonance imaging data across different scanners to advance the reproducibility of neuroscience research. In the present study, we developed an analysis strategy for Scanner-Specific Detection (SS-Detect) of SBPs in multiscanner studies, and evaluated its performance relative to a conventional strategy. METHODS: In the first experiment, the SimTB toolbox was used to generate simulated datasets mimicking 20 different scanners with common and scanner-specific SBPs. In the second experiment, we generated one simulated SBP from empirical gray matter volume (GMV) datasets from two different scanners. Moreover, we applied two strategies to compare SBPs between schizophrenia patients' and healthy controls' GMV from two scanners. RESULTS: The outputs of the conventional strategy were limited to whole-sample-level results across all scanners; the outputs of SS-Detect included whole-sample-level and scanner-specific results. In the first simulation experiment, SS-Detect successfully estimated all simulated SBPs, including the common and scanner-specific SBPs, whereas the conventional strategy detected only some of the whole-sample SBPs. The second simulation experiment showed that both strategies could detect the simulated SBP. Quantitative evaluations of both experiments demonstrated greater accuracy of the SS-Detect in estimating spatial SBPs and subject-specific loading parameters. In the third experiment, SS-Detect detected more significant between-group SBPs, and these SBPs corresponded with the results from voxel-based morphometry analysis, suggesting that SS-Detect has higher sensitivity in detecting between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: SS-Detect outperformed the conventional strategy and can be considered advantageous when SBM is applied to a multiscanner study.
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 | 0.017 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".