MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391573090 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2024.1223230

Comparing data-driven physiological denoising approaches for resting-state fMRI: implications for the study of aging

2024· article· en· W4391573090 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Golestani, J. Jean Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsResting state fMRICommunication noiseArtifact (error)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceNoise (video)Computer scienceNoise reductionPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Physiological nuisance contributions by cardiac and respiratory signals have a significant impact on resting-state fMRI data quality. As these physiological signals are often not recorded, data-driven denoising methods are commonly used to estimate and remove physiological noise from fMRI data. To investigate the efficacy of these denoising methods, one of the first steps is to accurately capture the cardiac and respiratory signals, which requires acquiring fMRI data with high temporal resolution. Methods: In this study, we used such high-temporal resolution fMRI data to evaluate the effectiveness of several data-driven denoising methods, including global-signal regression (GSR), white matter and cerebrospinal fluid regression (WM-CSF), anatomical (aCompCor) and temporal CompCor (tCompCor), ICA-AROMA. Our analysis focused on the consequence of changes in low-frequency, cardiac and respiratory signal power, as well as age-related differences in terms of functional connectivity (fcMRI). Results: Our results confirm that the ICA-AROMA and GSR removed the most physiological noise but also more low-frequency signals. These methods are also associated with substantially lower age-related fcMRI differences. On the other hand, aCompCor and tCompCor appear to be better at removing high-frequency physiological signals but not low-frequency signal power. These methods are also associated with relatively higher age-related fcMRI differences, whether driven by neuronal signal or residual artifact. These results were reproduced in data downsampled to represent conventional fMRI sampling frequency. Lastly, methods differ in performance depending on the age group. Discussion: While this study cautions direct comparisons of fcMRI results based on different denoising methods in the study of aging, it also enhances the understanding of different denoising methods in broader fcMRI applications.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.316
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.039 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207