Activation mapping in multi-center retrospective rat sensory-evoked functional MRI datasets using a unified pipeline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) in rodents is pivotal for understanding the mechanisms underlying Blood Oxygen Level-Dependent (BOLD) signals and phenotyping animal models of disorders, among other applications. Despite its growing use, comparing rodent fMRI results across different research sites remains challenging due to variations in experimental protocols. Here, we aggregated and analyzed 22 sensory-evoked rat fMRI datasets from 12 imaging centers, totaling scans from 220 rats, to get a snapshot of the current acquisitions in the field. This retrospective analysis highlights common practices and parameters to inform future cross-laboratory standardization efforts. We applied a standardized preprocessing pipeline and evaluated the impact of different hemodynamic response function models on group- and individual-level activity patterns. Our analysis revealed inter-dataset variability attributed to differences in experimental design, anesthesia protocols, and imaging parameters. We identified robust activation clusters in all (22/22) datasets. The comparison between stock human models implemented in software and rat-specific models showed significant variations in the resulting statistical maps. Our findings emphasize the necessity for standardized protocols and collaborative efforts to improve the reproducibility and reliability of rodent fMRI studies. We provide open access to all datasets and analysis code to foster transparency and further research in the field.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".