MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386000334 · doi:10.1101/2023.08.17.553675

Effect of analytical variability in estimating EEG-based functional connectivity

2023· preprint· en· W4386000334 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sahar Allouch, Aya Kabbara, Joan Duprez, Véronique Paban, Mohamad Khalil, Julien Modolo, Mahmoud Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConseil National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCampus FranceUniversité LibanaiseCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Universitaire de la Francophonie
KeywordsNeuroimagingElectroencephalographyConsistency (knowledge bases)Computer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Pipeline (software)Similarity (geometry)Functional connectivityArtificial intelligenceData miningPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyStatisticsMathematicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The significant degree of variability and flexibility in neuroimaging analysis approaches has recently raised concerns. When running any neuroimaging study, the researcher is faced with a large number of methodological choices, often made arbitrarily. This can produce substantial variability in the results, ultimately hindering research replicability, and thus, robust conclusions. Here, we addressed the analytical variability in the EEG source connectivity pipeline and its effects on outcomes consistency. Like most neuroimaging analyses, the EEG source connectivity analysis involves the processing of high-dimensional data and is characterized by a complex workflow that leads to high analytical variability. In this study, we focused on source functional connectivity variability induced by three key factors along the analysis pipeline: 1) number of EEG electrodes, 2) inverse solution algorithms, and 3) functional connectivity metrics. Outcomes variability was assessed in terms of group-level consistency, inter-, and intra-subjects similarity, using resting-state EEG data (n = 88). As expected, our results showed that different choices related to the number of electrodes, source reconstruction algorithm, and functional connectivity measure substantially affect group-level consistency, between-, and within-subjects similarity. We believe that the significant impact of such methodological variability represents a critical issue for neuroimaging studies that should be prioritized. Highlights The significant impact of methodological variability is a recognized critical priority issue for neuroimaging studies. Analytical variability related to the number of electrodes, source reconstruction algorithm, and functional connectivity measure is a prominent issue in the EEG source connectivity analysis. Group-level consistency, between-, and within-subjects similarity are substantially affected by analytical variability in the EEG source connectivity 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.231
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.231
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→