Can this data be saved? Techniques for high motion in resting state scans of first grade children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motion remains a significant technical hurdle in fMRI studies of young children. Our aim was to develop a straightforward and effective method for obtaining and preprocessing resting state data from a high-motion pediatric cohort. This approach combines real-time monitoring of head motion with a preprocessing pipeline that uses volume censoring and concatenation alongside independent component analysis based denoising. We evaluated this method using a sample of 108 first grade children (age 6-8) enrolled in a longitudinal study of math development. Data quality was assessed by analyzing the correlation between participant head motion and two key metrics for resting state data, temporal signal-to-noise and functional connectivity. These correlations should be minimal in the absence of noise-related artifacts. We compared these data quality indicators using several censoring thresholds to determine the necessary degree of censoring. Volume censoring was highly effective at removing motion-corrupted volumes and ICA denoising removed much of the remaining motion artifact. With the censoring threshold set to exclude volumes that exceeded a framewise displacement of 0.3 mm, preprocessed data met rigorous standards for data quality while retaining a large majority of subjects (83 % of participants). Overall, results show it is possible to obtain usable resting-state data despite extreme motion in a group of young, untrained subjects.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".