Searching for Consistent Brain Network Topologies Across the Garden of (Shortest) Forking Paths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The functional interactions between regions of the human brain can be viewed as a network, empowering neuroscientists to leverage tools such as graph theory to obtain insight about brain function. However, obtaining a brain network from functional neuroimaging data inevitably involves multiple steps of data manipulation, which can affect the organisation (topology) of the resulting network and its properties. Test-retest reliability is a gold standard for both basic research and clinical use: a suitable data-processing pipeline for brain networks should recover the same network topology across repeated scan sessions of the same individual. Analyzing resting-state functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (rs-fMRI) recordings from two test-retest studies across short (45 minutes), medium (2-4 weeks) and long term delays (5-16 months), we investigated the reliability of network topologies constructed by applying 576 unique pipelines to the same fMRI data, obtained from considering combinations of atlas type and size, edge definition and thresholding, and use of global signal regression. We adopted the portrait divergence, an information-theoretic criterion to measure differences in network topology across all scales, enabling us to quantify the influence of different pipelines on the overall organisation of the resulting network. Remarkably, our findings reveal that the choice of pipeline plays a fundamental role in determining how reproducible an individual’s brain network topology will be across different scans: there is large and systematic variability across pipelines, such that an inappropriate choice of pipeline can distort the resulting network more than an interval of several months between scans. Across datasets and time-spans, we also identify specific combinations of data-processing steps that consistently yield networks with reproducible topology, enabling us to make recommendations about best practices to ensure high-quality brain networks.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".