MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132015753 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11591

On statistical tests of functional connectome fingerprinting

2021· article· en· W3132015753 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zeyi Wang, Haris I. Sair, Ciprian Crainiceanu, Martin A. Lindquist, Bennett A. Landman, Susan M. Resnick, Joshua T Vogelstein, Brian Caffo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnectomeConnectomicsComputer scienceStatistical hypothesis testingPermutation (music)Matching (statistics)StatisticBiometricsTest statisticCluster analysisMultiple comparisons problemStatisticsData miningArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fingerprinting of functional connectomes is an increasingly standard measure of reproducibility in functional magnetic resonance imaging connectomics. In such studies, one attempts to match a subject's first session image with their second, in a blinded fashion, in a group of subjects measured twice. The number or percentage of correct matches is usually reported as a statistic, which is then used in permutation tests. Despite the simplicity and increasing popularity of such procedures, the soundness of the statistical tests, the power, and the factors impacting the test are unstudied. In this article, we investigate the statistical tests of matching based on exchangeability assumption in the fingerprinting analysis. We show that a nearly universal Poisson(1) approximation applies for different matching schemes. We theoretically investigate the permutation tests and explore the issue that the test is overly sensitive to uninteresting directions in the alternative hypothesis, such as clustering due to familial status or demographics. We perform a numerical study on two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) resting‐state datasets, the Human Connectome Project (HCP) and the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA). These datasets are instructive, as the HCP includes technical replications of long scans and includes monozygotic and dizygotic twins, as well as non‐twin siblings. In contrast, the BLSA study incorporates more typical length resting‐state scans in a longitudinal study. Finally, a study of single regional connections is performed on the HCP data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207