Multi-task machine learning reveals the functional neuroanatomy fingerprint of mental processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental processing delineates the functions of human mind encompassing a wide range of motor, sensory, emotional, and cognitive processes, each of which is underlain by the neuroanatomical substrates. Identifying accurate representation of functional neuroanatomy substrates of mental processing could inform understanding of its neural mechanism. The challenge is that it is unclear whether a specific mental process possesses a 'functional neuroanatomy fingerprint', i.e., a unique and reliable pattern of functional neuroanatomy that underlies the mental process. To address this question, we utilized a multi-task deep learning model to disentangle the functional neuroanatomy fingerprint of seven different and representative mental processes including Emotion, Gambling, Language, Motor, Relational, Social, and Working Memory. Results based on the functional magnetic resonance imaging data of two independent cohorts of 1235 subjects from the US and China consistently show that each of the seven mental processes possessed a functional neuroanatomy fingerprint, which is represented by a unique set of functional activity weights of whole-brain regions characterizing the degree of each region involved in the mental process. The functional neuroanatomy fingerprint of a specific mental process exhibits high discrimination ability (93% classification accuracy and AUC of 0.99) with those of the other mental processes, and is robust across different datasets and using different brain atlases. This study provides a solid functional neuroanatomy foundation for investigating the neural mechanism of mental processing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".