Image-Based Meta- and Mega-Analysis (IBMMA): A Unified Framework for Large-Scale, Multi-Site, Neuroimaging Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing scale and complexity of neuroimaging datasets aggregated from multiple study sites present substantial analytic challenges, as existing statistical analysis tools struggle to handle missing voxel-data, suffer from limited computational speed and inefficient memory allocation, and are restricted in the types of statistical designs they are able to model. We introduce Image-Based Meta- & Mega-Analysis (IBMMA), a novel software package implemented in R and Python that provides a unified framework for analyzing diverse neuroimaging features, efficiently handles large-scale datasets through parallel processing, offers flexible statistical modeling options, and properly manages missing voxel-data commonly encountered in multi-site studies. IBMMA produced stronger effect sizes and revealed findings in brain regions that traditional software overlooked due to missing voxel-data resulting in gaps in brain coverage. IBMMA has the potential to accelerate discoveries in neuroscience and enhance the clinical utility of neuroimaging findings.
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 | 0.069 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".