Detecting Dopamine Release via PCA of Residuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopamine release can be detected in vivo using [ <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">11</sup> C]raclopride dynamic PET imaging: raclopride competes for binding with dopamine and thus a voxel-level change in dopamine concentration alters the voxel-level PET temporal signal. Current methods to detect dopamine release suffer from low sensitivity, primarily due to image noise and relying on model comparison methods which, at present, poorly separate true positives from true negatives. We propose an alternative, data-driven method that regresses denoised voxel-level signals on regional signals, producing structured residuals where dopamine release is present. Principal component analysis of these residuals is then used to localize the release. Simulation studies demonstrate that our proposed PCA method yields more reliable and conformal detection of dopamine release than the model comparison method across a variety of denoising kernel sizes, with 1.5-2x higher sensitivity at equivalent false positive rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".