NeuroCI: Continuous Integration of Neuroimaging Results Across Software Pipelines and Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract —Neuroimaging study results can vary significantly depending on the datasets and processing pipelines utilized by researchers to run their analyses, contributing to reproducibility issues. These issues are compounded by the fact that there are a large variety of seemingly equivalent tools and methodologies available to researchers for processing neuroimaging data. Here we present NeuroCI, a novel software framework that allows users to evaluate the variability of their results across multiple pipelines and datasets. NeuroCI makes use of Continuous Integration (CI), a software engineering technique, to facilitate the reproducibility of computational experiments by launching a series of automated tests when code or data is added to a repository. However, unlike regular CI services, our CI-based framework uses distributed computation and storage to meet the large memory and storage requirements of neuroimaging pipelines and datasets. Moreover, the framework’s modular design enables it to continuously ingest pipelines and datasets provided by the user, and to compute and visualize results across the multiple different pipelines and datasets. This allows researchers and practitioners to quantify the variability and reliability of results in their domain across a large range of computational methods.
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 | 0.043 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".