A multi-measure approach for assessing the performance of fMRI preprocessing strategies in resting-state functional connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is well established that head motion and physiological processes (e.g. cardiac and breathing activity) should be taken into consideration when analyzing and interpreting results in fMRI studies. However, even though recent studies aimed to evaluate the performance of different preprocessing pipelines there is still no consensus on the optimal strategy. This is partly due to the fact that the quality control (QC) metrics used to evaluate differences in performance across pipelines have often yielded contradictory results. Furthermore, preprocessing techniques based on physiological recordings or data decomposition techniques (e.g. aCompCor) have not been comprehensively examined. Here, to address the aforementioned issues, we propose a framework that summarizes the scores from eight previously proposed and novel QC metrics to a reduced set of two QC metrics that reflect the signal-to-noise ratio and the reduction in motion artifacts and biases in the preprocessed fMRI data. Using this framework, we evaluate the performance of three commonly used practices on the quality of data: 1) Removal of nuisance regressors from fMRI data, 2) discarding motion-contaminated volumes (i.e., scrubbing) before regression, and 3) low-pass filtering the data and the nuisance regressors before their removal. Using resting-state fMRI data from the Human Connectome Project, we show that the scores of the examined QC metrics improve the most when the global signal (GS) and about 17% of principal components from white matter (WM) are removed from the data. Finally, we observe a small further improvement with low-pass filtering at 0.20 Hz and milder variants of WM denoising, but not with scrubbing.
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 | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".