Bridging Big Data: Procedures for Combining Non-equivalent Cognitive Measures from the ENIGMA Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigators in neuroscience have turned to Big Data to address replication and reliability issues by increasing sample sizes, statistical power, and representativeness of data. These efforts unveil new questions about integrating data arising from distinct sources and instruments. We focus on the most frequently assessed cognitive domain - memory testing - and demonstrate a process for reliable data harmonization across three common measures. We aggregated global raw data from 53 studies totaling N = 10,505 individuals. A mega-analysis was conducted using empirical bayes harmonization to remove site effects, followed by linear models adjusting for common covariates. A continuous item response theory (IRT) model estimated each individual's latent verbal learning ability while accounting for item difficulties. Harmonization significantly reduced inter-site variance while preserving covariate effects, and our conversion tool is freely available online. This demonstrates that large-scale data sharing and harmonization initiatives can address reproducibility and integration challenges across the behavioral sciences.
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 | 0.204 | 0.440 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.009 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".