MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256134341 · doi:10.35940/ijeat.f1078.0886s19

Identification and Research of Adhd and Healthy Controls using Fmri

2019· article· en· W4256134341 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. Thaiyalnayaki

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelIndependent component analysisFunctional magnetic resonance imagingArtificial intelligenceResting state fMRIPattern recognition (psychology)Computer sciencePreprocessorNeuroimagingNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyzing the brain regions for different activations corresponding to the activation input for an experimental setup of task functional MRI or a resting state functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging(fMRI) for a diagnosed or healthy control is a challenging issue as the processing data is voluminous 4D data with nearly 1,51,552 voxels for a single volume of 261 scans fMRI. The data considered for analysis consists of 10 healthy controls and 10 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD) fMRI. The workflow starts with preprocessing the individual scan for realignment, coregistration and Normalisation to Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space. Single site scan visit consists of 64x64x37 voxels. Seventy independent components are obtained from processed data by data reduction, Independent Component Analysis (ICA) calculation, Back reconstruction and Component Calibration. ICA performs satisfactorily well on temporal and spatial localization. Visual medial network activation is pronounced in ADHD Controls than in healthy people. Sagittal, Axial and Coronal view of ADHD controls is obtained as component number 42.The analysis is further used for the automatic classification of healthy controls and ADHD people.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Engineering and Advanced TechnologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207