Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) has become an indispensable tool in neuroscience research. Despite this, rs-fMRI signals are easily contaminated by artifacts arising from movement of the head during data collection. The artifacts can be problematic even for motions on the millimeter scale, with complex spatiotemporal properties that can lead to substantial errors in functional connectivity estimates. Effective correction methods must be employed, therefore, to distinguish true functional networks from motion-related noise. Research over the last three decades has produced numerous correction methods, many of which must be applied in combination to achieve satisfactory data quality. Subject instruction, training, and mild restraints are helpful at the outset, but usually insufficient. Improvements come from applying multiple motion correction algorithms retrospectively after rs-fMRI data are collected, although residual artifacts can still remain in cases of elevated motion, which are especially prevalent in patient populations. Although not commonly adopted at present, "real-time" correction methods are emerging that can be combined with retrospective methods and that promise better correction and increased rs-fMRI signal sensitivity. While the search for the ideal motion correction protocol continues, rs-fMRI research will benefit from good disclosure practices, such as: (1) reporting motion-related quality control metrics to provide better comparison between studies; and (2) including motion covariates in group-level analyses to limit the extent of motion-related confounds when studying group differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".