NIDM-Terms: community-based terminology management for improved neuroimaging dataset descriptions and query
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biomedical research community is motivated to share and reuse data from studies and projects by funding agencies and publishers. Effectively combining and reusing neuroimaging data from publicly available datasets, requires the capability to query across datasets in order to identify cohorts that match both neuroimaging and clinical/behavioral data criteria. Critical barriers to operationalizing such queries include, in part, the broad use of undefined study variables with limited or no annotations that make it difficult to understand the data available without significant interaction with the original authors. Using the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) to organize neuroimaging data has made querying across studies for specific image types possible at scale. However, in BIDS, beyond file naming and tightly controlled imaging directory structures, there are very few constraints on ancillary variable naming/meaning or experiment-specific metadata. In this work, we present NIDM-Terms, a set of user-friendly terminology management tools and associated software to better manage individual lab terminologies and help with annotating BIDS datasets. Using these tools to annotate BIDS data with a Neuroimaging Data Model (NIDM) semantic web representation, enables queries across datasets to identify cohorts with specific neuroimaging and clinical/behavioral measurements. This manuscript describes the overall informatics structures and demonstrates the use of tools to annotate BIDS datasets to perform integrated cross-cohort queries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".