Resting state fMRI scanner instabilities revealed by longitudinal phantom scans in a multi-center study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality assurance (QA) is crucial in longitudinal and/or multi-site studies, which involve the collection of data from a group of subjects over time and/or at different locations. It is important to regularly monitor the performance of the scanners over time and at different locations to detect and control for intrinsic differences (e.g., due to manufacturers) and changes in scanner performance (e.g., due to gradual component aging, software and/or hardware upgrades, etc.). As part of the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI) and the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (CAN-BIND), QA phantom scans were conducted approximately monthly for three to four years at 13 sites across Canada with 3T research MRI scanners. QA parameters were calculated for each scan using the functional Biomarker Imaging Research Network's (fBIRN) QA phantom and pipeline to capture between- and within-scanner variability. We also describe a QA protocol to measure the full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) of slice-wise point spread functions (PSF), used in conjunction with the fBIRN QA parameters. Variations in image resolution measured by the FWHM are a primary source of variance over time for many sites, as well as between sites and between manufacturers. We also identify an unexpected range of instabilities affecting individual slices in a number of scanners, which may amount to a substantial contribution of unexplained signal variance to their data. Finally, we identify a preliminary preprocessing approach to reduce this variance and/or alleviate the slice anomalies, and in a small human data set show that this change in preprocessing can have a significant impact on seed-based connectivity measurements for some individual subjects. We expect that other fMRI centres will find this approach to identifying and controlling scanner instabilities useful in similar studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".