MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399086294 · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000001280

fMRI-based spatio-temporal parcellations of the human brain

2024· article· en· W4399086294 on OpenAlexaff
Qinrui Ling, Aiping Liu, Yu Li, Martin J. McKeown, Xun Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityComputer scienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingArtificial intelligenceSegmentationBrain activity and meditationNeuroimagingDeep learningNeuroscienceMachine learningPsychologyElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Human brain parcellation based on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) plays an essential role in neuroscience research. By segmenting vast and intricate fMRI data into functionally similar units, researchers can better decipher the brain's structure in both healthy and diseased states. This article reviews current methodologies and ideas in this field, while also outlining the obstacles and directions for future research. RECENT FINDINGS: Traditional brain parcellation techniques, which often rely on cytoarchitectonic criteria, overlook the functional and temporal information accessible through fMRI. The adoption of machine learning techniques, notably deep learning, offers the potential to harness both spatial and temporal information for more nuanced brain segmentation. However, the search for a one-size-fits-all solution to brain segmentation is impractical, with the choice between group-level or individual-level models and the intended downstream analysis influencing the optimal parcellation strategy. Additionally, evaluating these models is complicated by our incomplete understanding of brain function and the absence of a definitive "ground truth". SUMMARY: While recent methodological advancements have significantly enhanced our grasp of the brain's spatial and temporal dynamics, challenges persist in advancing fMRI-based spatio-temporal representations. Future efforts will likely focus on refining model evaluation and selection as well as developing methods that offer clear interpretability for clinical usage, thereby facilitating further breakthroughs in our comprehension of the brain.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207