Why experimental variation in neuroimaging should be embraced
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a perfect world, scientists would develop analyses that are guaranteed to reveal the ground truth of a research question. In reality, there are countless viable workflows that produce distinct, often conflicting, results. Although reproducibility places a necessary bound on the validity of results, it is not sufficient for claiming underlying validity, eventual utility, or generalizability. In this work we focus on how embracing variability in data analysis can improve the generalizability of results. We contextualize how design decisions in brain imaging can be made to capture variation, highlight examples, and discuss how variability capture may improve the quality of results. Brain imaging analysis lacks accessible ground-truth approaches, leading to varied results across the field. Embracing analytical variability may allow researchers to enhance the generalizability of findings and accelerate progress.
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 | 0.074 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".