Quality control in resting-state fMRI: the benefits of visual inspection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A variety of quality control (QC) approaches are employed in resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) to determine data quality and ultimately inclusion or exclusion of a fMRI data set in group analysis. Reliability of rs-fMRI data can be improved by censoring or "scrubbing" volumes affected by motion. While censoring preserves the integrity of participant-level data, including excessively censored data sets in group analyses may add noise. Quantitative motion-related metrics are frequently reported in the literature; however, qualitative visual inspection can sometimes catch errors or other issues that may be missed by quantitative metrics alone. In this paper, we describe our methods for performing QC of rs-fMRI data using software-generated quantitative and qualitative output and trained visual inspection. Results: The data provided for this QC paper had relatively low motion-censoring, thus quantitative QC resulted in no exclusions. Qualitative checks of the data resulted in limited exclusions due to potential incidental findings and failed pre-processing scripts. Conclusion: Visual inspection in addition to the review of quantitative QC metrics is an important component to ensure high quality and accuracy in rs-fMRI data analysis.
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 | 0.101 | 0.303 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".