MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282928084 · doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01386-3

A longitudinal multi-scanner multimodal human neuroimaging dataset

2022· article· en· W4282928084 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Hawco, Erin W. Dickie, Gabrielle Herman, Jessica A. Turner, Miklós Árgyelán, Anil K. Malhotra, Robert W. Buchanan, Aristotle N. Voineskos

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsNeuroimagingScannerModalitiesHuman brainComputer scienceDiffusion MRIConsistency (knowledge bases)Artificial intelligenceMedical physicsPsychologyMedicineNeuroscienceMagnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human neuroimaging has led to an overwhelming amount of research into brain function in healthy and clinical populations. However, a better appreciation of the limitations of small sample studies has led to an increased number of multi-site, multi-scanner protocols to understand human brain function. As part of a multi-site project examining social cognition in schizophrenia, a group of "travelling human phantoms" had structural T1, diffusion, and resting-state functional MRIs obtained annually at each of three sites. Scan protocols were carefully harmonized across sites prior to the study. Due to scanner upgrades at each site (all sites acquired PRISMA MRIs during the study) and one participant being replaced, the end result was 30 MRI scans across 4 people, 6 MRIs, and 4 years. This dataset includes multiple neuroimaging modalities and repeated scans across six MRIs. It can be used to evaluate differences across scanners, consistency of pipeline outputs, or test multi-scanner harmonization approaches.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.147 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207