Less is more: balancing noise reduction and data retention in fMRI with data-driven scrubbing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional MRI (fMRI) data may be contaminated by artifacts arising from a myriad of sources, including subject head motion, respiration, heartbeat, scanner drift, and thermal noise. These artifacts cause deviations from common distributional assumptions, introduce spatial and temporal outliers, and reduce the signal-to-noise ratio of the data-all of which can have negative consequences for the accuracy and power of downstream statistical analysis. Scrubbing is a technique for excluding fMRI volumes thought to be contaminated by artifacts and generally comes in two flavors. Motion scrubbing based on subject head motion-derived measures is popular but suffers from a number of drawbacks, among them the need to choose a threshold, a lack of generalizability to multiband acquisitions, and high rates of censoring of individual volumes and entire subjects. Alternatively, data-driven scrubbing methods like DVARS are based on observed noise in the processed fMRI timeseries and may avoid some of these issues. Here we propose "projection scrubbing", a novel data-driven scrubbing method based on a statistical outlier detection framework and strategic dimension reduction, including independent component analysis (ICA), to isolate artifactual variation. We undertake a comprehensive comparison of motion scrubbing with data-driven projection scrubbing and DVARS. We argue that an appropriate metric for the success of scrubbing is maximal data retention subject to reasonable performance on typical benchmarks such as the validity, reliability, and identifiability of functional connectivity. We find that stringent motion scrubbing yields worsened validity, worsened reliability, and produced small improvements to fingerprinting. Meanwhile, data-driven scrubbing methods tend to yield greater improvements to fingerprinting while not generally worsening validity or reliability. Importantly, however, data-driven scrubbing excludes a fraction of the number of volumes or entire sessions compared to motion scrubbing. The ability of data-driven fMRI scrubbing to improve data retention without negatively impacting the quality of downstream analysis has major implications for sample sizes in population neuroscience research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".