A network correspondence toolbox for quantitative evaluation of novel neuroimaging results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decades of neuroscience research has shown that macroscale brain dynamics can be reliably decomposed into a subset of large-scale functional networks, but the specific spatial topographies of these networks and the names used to describe them can vary across studies. Such discordance has hampered interpretation and convergence of research findings across the field. To address this problem, we have developed the Network Correspondence Toolbox (NCT) to permit researchers to examine and report spatial correspondence between their novel neuroimaging results and sixteen widely used functional brain atlases, consistent with recommended reporting standards developed by the Organization for Human Brain Mapping. The atlases included in the toolbox show some topographical convergence for specific networks, such as those labeled as default or visual. Network naming varies across atlases, particularly for networks spanning frontoparietal association cortices. For this reason, quantitative comparison with multiple atlases is recommended to benchmark novel neuroimaging findings. We provide several exemplar demonstrations using the Human Connectome Project task fMRI results and UK Biobank independent component analysis maps to illustrate how researchers can use the NCT to report their own findings through quantitative evaluation against multiple published atlases. The NCT provides a convenient means for computing Dice coefficients with spin test permutations to determine the magnitude and statistical significance of correspondence among user-defined maps and existing atlas labels. The NCT also includes functionality to incorporate additional atlases in the future. The adoption of the NCT will make it easier for network neuroscience researchers to report their findings in a standardized manner, thus aiding reproducibility and facilitating comparisons between studies to produce interdisciplinary insights.
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 | 0.029 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.011 |
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".