Advancing image-based meta-analysis for fMRI: A framework for leveraging NeuroVault data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Image-based meta-analysis (IBMA) is a powerful method for synthesizing results from various fMRI studies. However, challenges related to data accessibility and the lack of available tools and methods have limited its widespread use. This study examined the current state of the NeuroVault repository and developed a comprehensive framework for selecting and analyzing neuroimaging statistical maps within it. By systematically assessing the quality of NeuroVault’s data and implementing novel selection and meta-analysis techniques, we demonstrated the repository’s potential for IBMA. We created a multi-stage selection framework that includes preliminary, heuristic, and manual image selection methods. We conducted meta-analyses for three distinct domains: working memory, motor, and emotion processing. The results from the three manual IBMA approaches closely resembled reference maps from the Human Connectome Project. Importantly, we found that while manual selection provides the most precise results, heuristic methods can serve as robust alternatives, especially for domains that include a heterogeneous set of fMRI tasks and contrasts, such as emotion processing. Additionally, we evaluated five different meta-analytic estimator methods to assess their effectiveness in handling spurious images. For domains characterized by heterogeneous tasks, employing a robust estimator (e.g., median) is essential. This study is the first to present a systematic approach for implementing IBMA using the NeuroVault repository. We introduce an accessible and reproducible methodology that allows researchers to make the most of NeuroVault’s extensive neuroimaging resources, potentially fostering greater interest in data sharing and future meta-analyses utilizing NeuroVault data.
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 | 0.417 | 0.677 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".