Consensus recommendations for clinical functional MRI applied to language mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ample reports highlight fMRI's added value to guide neurosurgical interventions near brain regions supporting speech and language. However, fMRI's usefulness for clinical language mapping remains controversial, partly fueled by 1) differences from clinical standard tools it is often compared against, and 2) wide heterogeneity in how data are acquired, analyzed and interpreted. Both factors limit objective assessment of the benefits and efficacy of presurgical fMRI. This underscores the need for standardization of fMRI protocols to enable data pooling across centers and facilitate learning from patient outcomes. The OHBM Working Group on clinical fMRI language mapping was formed in 2017. Its scope was to review and propose best practice recommendations addressing specific challenges posed by applications in patient populations. Objectives were to: 1) consider language tasks and designs, optimized for specific clinical objectives, and incorporating modifications for patients with existing impairments; 2) offer practical guidance, based on high-quality research, for each step from fMRI acquisition and analysis to reporting individual patients' data. In considering these challenges we focus on implementations that have proven feasible based on approaches in active use today. When widely available practices deviate from optimal practices, we highlight emerging developments meriting further evaluation and incorporation into clinical use. This document was created in collaboration with the OHBM Committee on Best Practices, incorporating community feedback. It aims to provide a framework for improved standardization of fMRI to enable much-needed evaluations of its ultimate goals; namely, minimization of invasive intraoperative testing and, ultimately, of new post-operative language deficits. Accordingly, the single strongest recommendation is for greater transparency and reporting of longitudinal outcomes in patients undergoing clinical fMRI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".