MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391556561 · doi:10.1364/opticaopen.25140923

Predicting cortical-thalamic connectivity using functional near-infrared spectroscopy and graph convolutional networks

2024· preprint· en· W4391556561 on OpenAlexafffund
Lingkai Tang, Lilian Kebaya, Homa Vahidi, Paige Meyerink, Sandrine de Ribaupierre, Soume Bhattacharya, Keith St. Lawrence, Emma G. Duerden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChildren's Health Foundation
KeywordsFunctional connectivityGraphFunctional near-infrared spectroscopyComputer scienceInfraredSpectroscopyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)NeurosciencePsychologyPhysicsTheoretical computer scienceOpticsCognitionAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) measures cortical changes in hemoglobin concentrations, yet cannot collected this information from the subcortices. To address this drawback, we propose a machine-learning-based approach to predict cortical-thalamic functional connectivity using cortical fNIRS data. We applied graph convolutional networks (GCN) on two datasets obtained from adults and neonates, respectively. Each dataset contained fNIRS data as input to the predictive models and connectivities of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as training targets. GCN models performed better compared to conventional methods, on both identifying the connections, and regressing the quantified strengths of connections. We also propose the addition of inter-subject connections into the GCN kernels could improve performance. Our results show it is feasible to indicate subcortical activity from cortical fNIRS recordings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207