MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Group functional template generated with BASC on cognitively normal elderly and mild cognitive impairment populations

2015· dataset· en· W4394436305 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angela Tam, Christian Dansereau, AmanPreet Badhwar, Pierre Orban, Sylvie Belleville, Howard Chertkow, Alain Dagher, Alexandru Hanganu, Oury Monchi, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Amir Shmuel, Seqian Wang, John C.S. Breitner, Pierre Bellec, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentCognitionPsychologyAudiologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

### Content This work is derived from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 (ADNI2) and three samples from Montreal, Canada, as described in the following publication: Tam et al, Consistent inter-protocol differences in resting-state functional connectomes between normal aging and mild cognitive impairment (http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/019646). It includes group brain parcellations for clusters generated from resting-state functional magnetic resonance images for 99 cognitively normal elderly persons and 129 patients with mild cognitive impairment. The brain parcellations have been generated using a method called bootstrap analysis of stable clusters (BASC, Bellec et al., 2010) and eight resolutions of clusters (4, 6, 12, 22, 33, 65, 111, and 208 total parcels) were selected using a data-driven method called MSTEPS (Bellec, 2013). This release more specifically contains the following files: * README.md: a markdown (text) description of the release. * brain_parcellation_mcinet_basc_33clusters_(sym,asym).(mnc,nii).gz: a 3D volume (either in .mnc or .nii format) at 3 mm isotropic resolution, in the MNI non-linear 2009a space (http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/ServicesAtlases/ICBM152NLin2009). Region number I is filled with Is (background is filled with 0s). Note that four versions of the template are available, ending with either mnc_sym, mnc_asym, nii_sym or nii_asym. The mnc flavor contains files in the minc format, while the nii flavor has files in the nifti format. The asym flavor contains brain images that have been registered in the asymmetric version of the MNI brain template (reflecting that the brain is asymmetric), while with the sym flavor they have been registered in the symmetric version of the MNI template. The symmetric template has been forced to be symmetric anatomically, and is therefore ideally suited to study homotopic functional connections in fMRI: finding homotopic regions simply consists of flipping the x-axis of the template. ### Preprocessing The datasets were analysed using the NeuroImaging Analysis Kit (NIAK https://github.com/SIMEXP/niak) version 0.12.18, under CentOS version 6.3 with Octave (http://gnu.octave.org) version 3.8.1 and the Minc toolkit (http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/ServicesSoftware/ServicesSoftwareMincToolKit) version 0.3.18. Each fMRI dataset was corrected for inter-slice difference in acquisition time and the parameters of a rigid-body motion were estimated for each time frame. Rigid-body motion was estimated within as well as between runs, using the median volume of the first run as a target. The median volume of one selected fMRI run for each subject was coregistered with a T1 individual scan using Minctracc (Collins and Evans, 1998), which was itself non-linearly transformed to the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) template (Fonov et al., 2011) using the CIVET pipeline (Ad-Dabbagh et al., 2006). The MNI symmetric template was generated from the ICBM152 sample of 152 young adults, after 40 iterations of non-linear coregistration. The rigid-body transform, fMRI-to-T1 transform and T1-to-stereotaxic transform were all combined, and the functional volumes were resampled in the MNI space at a 3 mm isotropic resolution. The “scrubbing” method of (Power et al., 2012), was used to remove the volumes with excessive motion (frame displacement greater than 0.5 mm). A minimum number of 50 unscrubbed volumes per run was then required for further analysis. The following nuisance parameters were regressed out from the time series at each voxel: slow time drifts (basis of discrete cosines with a 0.01 Hz high-pass cut-off), average signals in conservative masks of the white matter and the lateral ventricles as well as the first principal components (95% energy) of the six rigid-body motion parameters and their squares (Giove et al., 2009). The fMRI volumes were finally spatially smoothed with a 6 mm isotropic Gaussian blurring kernel. ### Bootstrap Analysis of Stable Clusters Brain parcellations were derived using BASC (Bellec et al. 2010). A region growing algorithm was first applied to reduce the brain into regions of roughly equal size, set to 1000 mm3. The BASC used 100 replications of a hierarchical clustering with Ward's criterion on resampled individual time series, using circular block bootstrap. A consensus clustering (hierarchical with Ward's criterion) was generated across all the individual clustering replications pooled together, hence generating group clusters. The generation of group clusters was itself replicated by bootstraping subjects 500 times, and a (final) consensus clustering (hierarchical Ward's criterion) was generated on the replicated group clusters. The MSTEPS procedure (Bellec et al., 2013) was implemented to select a data-driven subset of scales in the range 5-200, approximating the group stability matrices up to 5% residual energy, through linear interpolation over selected scales. This resulted in 8 resolutions: 4, 6, 12, 22, 33, 65, 111, 208. Note that the number of resolutions was selected by the MSTEPS procedure in a data-driven fashion, and that the number of individual, group and final (consensus) number of clusters were not necessarily identical. ### References Ad-Dab’bagh, Y., Einarson, D., Lyttelton, O., Muehlboeck, J. S., Mok, K., Ivanov, O., Vincent, R. D., Lepage, C., Lerch, J., Fombonne, E., Evans, A. C., 2006. The CIVET Image-Processing Environment: A Fully Automated Comprehensive Pipeline for Anatomical Neuroimaging Research. In: Corbetta, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Human Brain Mapping Organization. Neuroimage, Florence, Italy. Bellec, P., Rosa-Neto, P., Lyttelton, O. C., Benali, H., Evans, A. C., Jul. 2010. Multi-level bootstrap analysis of stable clusters in resting-state fMRI. NeuroImage 51 (3), 1126–1139. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.082 Bellec, P., Jun. 2013. Mining the Hierarchy of Resting-State Brain Networks: Selection of Representative Clusters in a Multiscale Structure. In: Pattern Recognition in Neuroimaging (PRNI), 2013 International Workshop on. pp. 54–57. Collins, D. L., Evans, A. C., 1997. Animal: validation and applications of nonlinear registration-based segmentation. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 11, 1271–1294. Fonov, V., Evans, A. C., Botteron, K., Almli, C. R., McKinstry, R. C., Collins, D. L., Jan. 2011. Unbiased average age-appropriate atlases for pediatric studies. NeuroImage 54 (1), 313–327. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.033 Giove, F., Gili, T., Iacovella, V., Macaluso, E., Maraviglia, B., Oct. 2009. Images-based suppression of unwanted global signals in resting-state functional connectivity studies. Magnetic resonance imaging 27 (8), 1058–1064. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2009.06.004 Power, J. D., Barnes, K. A., Snyder, A. Z., Schlaggar, B. L., Petersen, S. E., Feb. 2012. Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. NeuroImage 59 (3), 2142–2154. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018 ### Other derivatives The datasets that were used to generate the parcellations are described in a publication, see the following link: https://github.com/SIMEXP/mcinet

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1310.035

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→