Within‐subject reliability of concurrent <scp>TMS‐fMRI</scp> during a single session
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concurrent transcranial magnetic stimulation with functional MRI (concurrent TMS-fMRI) allows real-time causative probing of brain connectivity. However, technical challenges, safety, and tolerability may limit the number of trials employed during a concurrent TMS-fMRI experiment. We leveraged an existing data set with 100 trials of active TMS compared to a sub-threshold control condition to assess the reliability of the evoked BOLD response during concurrent TMS-fMRI. This data will permit an analysis of the minimum number of trials that should be employed in a concurrent TMS-fMRI protocol in order to achieve reliable spatial changes in activity. Single-subject maps of brain activity were created by splitting the trials within the same experimental session into groups of 50, 40, 30, 25, 20, 15, or 10 trials, correlations (R) between t-maps derived from paired subsets of trials within the same individual were calculated as reliability. R was moderate-high for 50 trials (mean R = .695) and decreased as the number of trials decreased. Consistent with previous findings of high individual variability in the spatial patterns of evoked neuronal changes following a TMS pulse, the spatial pattern of Rs differed across participants, but regional R was correlated with the magnitude of TMS-evoked activity. These results demonstrate concurrent TMS-fMRI produces a reliable pattern of activity at the individual level at higher trial numbers, particularly within localized regions. The spatial pattern of reliability is individually idiosyncratic and related to the individual pattern of evoked changes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".