MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using non-invasive neuroimaging to enhance the care, well-being and experimental outcomes of laboratory non-human primates (monkeys)

2020· review· en· W3115673001 on OpenAlexaff
Michele A. Basso, Stephen Frey, Kathryn A. Guerriero, Béchir Jarraya, Sabine Kästner, Kenji W. Koyano, David A. Leopold, Kathy Murphy, Colline Poirier, Whitney B. Pope, Afonso C. Silva, Ginger Tansey, Lynn Uhrig

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsRogue Research (Canada)
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthFondation Bettencourt SchuellerNational Institute on AgingNewcastle UniversityNational Institutes of HealthNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research
KeywordsNeuroimagingMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingMedical physicsBrain functionNeurosciencePsychologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 10-20 years, neuroscience witnessed an explosion in the use of non-invasive imaging methods, particularly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to study brain structure and function. Simultaneously, with access to MRI in many research institutions, MRI has become an indispensable tool for researchers and veterinarians to guide improvements in surgical procedures and implants and thus, experimental as well as clinical outcomes, given that access to MRI also allows for improved diagnosis and monitoring for brain disease. As part of the PRIMEatE Data Exchange, we gathered expert scientists, veterinarians, and clinicians who treat humans, to provide an overview of the use of non-invasive imaging tools, primarily MRI, to enhance experimental and welfare outcomes for laboratory non-human primates engaged in neuroscientific experiments. We aimed to provide guidance for other researchers, scientists and veterinarians in the use of this powerful imaging technology as well as to foster a larger conversation and community of scientists and veterinarians with a shared goal of improving the well-being and experimental outcomes for laboratory animals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207