MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403936075 · doi:10.1214/24-aoas1942

Learning brain connectivity in social cognition with dynamic network regression

2024· article· en· W4403936075 on OpenAlexaff
Maoyu Zhang, Biao Cai, Wenlin Dai, Dehan Kong, Hongyu Zhao, Jingfei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Applied Statistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionRegressionCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceRegression analysisPsychologyComputer scienceMachine learningNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic networks have been increasingly used to characterize brain connectivity that varies during resting and task states. In such characterizations a connectivity network is typically measured at each time point for a subject over a common set of nodes representing brain regions, together with rich subject-level information. A common approach to analyzing such data is an edge-based method that models the connectivity between each pair of nodes separately. However, such approach may have limited performance when the noise level is high and the number of subjects is limited, as it does not take advantage of the inherent network structure. To better understand if and how the subject-level covariates affect the dynamic brain connectivity, we introduce a semiparametric dynamic network response regression that relates a dynamic brain connectivity network to a vector of subject-level covariates. A key advantage of our method is to exploit the structure of dynamic imaging coefficients in the form of high-order tensors. We develop an efficient estimation algorithm and evaluate the efficacy of our approach through simulation studies. Finally, we present our results on the analysis of a task-related study on social cognition in the Human Connectome Project, where we identify known sex-specific effects on brain connectivity that cannot be inferred using alternative methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Applied StatisticsSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207