Modality-level obstacles and initiatives to improve representation in fetal, infant, and toddler neuroimaging research samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fetal, infant, and toddler (FIT) neuroimaging researchers study early brain development to gain insights into neurodevelopmental processes and identify early markers of neurobiological vulnerabilities to target for intervention. However, the field has historically excluded people from global majority countries and from marginalized communities in FIT neuroimaging research. Inclusive and representative samples are essential for generalizing findings across neuroimaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging, magnetoencephalography, electroencephalography, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, and cranial ultrasonography. These FIT neuroimaging techniques pose unique and overlapping challenges to equitable representation in research through sampling bias, technical constraints, limited accessibility, and insufficient resources. The present article adds to the conversation around the need to improve inclusivity by highlighting modality-specific historical and current obstacles and ongoing initiatives. We conclude by discussing tangible solutions that transcend individual modalities, ultimately providing recommendations to promote equitable FIT neuroscience.
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 | 0.387 | 0.476 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".