MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412984004 · doi:10.1162/imag.a.118

The effect of spherical projection on spin tests for brain maps

2025· article· en· W4412984004 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueImaging Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation Brain CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsProjection (relational algebra)Spin (aerodynamics)MathematicsPhysicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical comparison between brain maps is a standard procedure in neuroimaging. Numerous inferential methods have been developed to account for the effect of spatial autocorrelation when evaluating map-to-map similarity. A popular method to generate surrogate maps with preserved spatial autocorrelation is the spin test. Here we show that a key component of the procedure-projecting brain maps to a spherical surface-distorts distance relationships between vertices. These distortions result in surrogate maps that imperfectly preserve spatial autocorrelation, yielding inflated false positive rates. We then confirm that targeted removal of individual spins with high distortion reduces false positive rates. Collectively, this work highlights the importance of accurately representing and manipulating cortical geometry when generating surrogate maps for use in map-to-map comparisons.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it