fMRIflows: A Consortium of Fully Automatic Univariate and Multivariate fMRI Processing Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data are analyzed depends on the researcher and the toolbox used. It is not uncommon that the processing pipeline is rewritten for each new dataset. Consequently, code transparency, quality control and objective analysis pipelines are important for improving reproducibility in neuroimaging studies. Toolboxes, such as Nipype and fMRIPrep, have documented the need for and interest in automated pre-processing analysis pipelines. Recent developments in data-driven models combined with high resolution neuroimaging dataset have strengthened the need not only for a standardized preprocessing workflow, but also for a reliable and comparable statistical pipeline. Here, we introduce fMRIflows: a consortium of fully automatic neuroimaging pipelines for fMRI analysis, which performs standard preprocessing, as well as 1st- and 2nd-level univariate and multivariate analyses. In addition to the standardized pre-processing pipelines, fMRIflows provides flexible temporal and spatial filtering to account for datasets with increasingly high temporal resolution and to help appropriately prepare data for advanced machine learning analyses, improving signal decoding accuracy and reliability. This paper first describes fMRIflows' structure and functionality, then explains its infrastructure and access, and lastly validates the toolbox by comparing it to other neuroimaging processing pipelines such as fMRIPrep, FSL and SPM. This validation was performed on three datasets with varying temporal sampling and acquisition parameters to prove its flexibility and robustness. fMRIflows is a fully automatic fMRI processing pipeline which uniquely offers univariate and multivariate single-subject and group analyses as well as pre-processing.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.023 |
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".