Benchmarking common preprocessing strategies in early childhood functional connectivity and intersubject correlation fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preprocessing choices present a particular challenge for researchers working with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data from young children. Steps which have been shown to be important for mitigating head motion, such as censoring and global signal regression (GSR), remain controversial, and benchmarking studies comparing preprocessing pipelines have been conducted using resting data from older participants who tend to move less than young children. Here, we conducted benchmarking of fMRI preprocessing steps in a population with high head-motion, children aged 4-8 years, leveraging a unique longitudinal, passive viewing fMRI dataset. We systematically investigated combinations of global signal regression (GSR), volume censoring, and ICA-AROMA. Pipelines were compared using previously established metrics of noise removal as well as metrics sensitive to recovery of individual differences (i.e., connectome fingerprinting), and stimulus-evoked responses (i.e., intersubject correlations; ISC). We found that: 1) the most efficacious pipeline for both noise removal and information recovery included censoring, GSR, bandpass filtering, and head motion parameter (HMP) regression, 2) ICA-AROMA performed similarly to HMP regression and did not obviate the need for censoring, 3) GSR had a minimal impact on connectome fingerprinting but improved ISC, and 4) the strictest censoring approaches reduced motion correlated edges but negatively impacted identifiability.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".