Using fingerprinting as a testbed for strategies to improve reproducibility of functional connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproducible functional connectivity-based biomarkers have remained elusive despite the promise of deeply phenotyped consortia. Developing methods for assessing and optimizing the reproducibility of functional connectivity pipelines and metrics is crucial to advancing biomarker identification. Here, we demonstrate functional connectome fingerprinting can serve as a robust, easily computed, intuitive, and sensitive index for assessing, comparing or benchmarking pipeline parameters. Using five datasets from the Consortium for Replicability and Reproducibility, we found that higher identification accuracies were achieved when using: (I) global signal regression; (II) finer brain parcellations; (III) cortical regions compared to subcortical and cerebellar structures; (IV) medial frontal and frontoparietal networks relative to the whole-brain; (V) discriminative edges; (VI) longer scan duration; and (VII) lower sample size. Such fingerprint-informed pipelines may enable assessment and adjudication of functional connectivity-based analysis pipelines or novel analytic approaches, as a means to enhance their reproducibility in heterogeneous populations, and to advance biomarker discovery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".