Robust regression for large-scale neuroimaging studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-subject datasets used in neuroimaging group studies have a complex structure, as they exhibit non-stationary statistical properties across regions and display various artifacts. While studies with small sample sizes can rarely be shown to deviate from standard hypotheses (such as the normality of the residuals) due to the poor sensitivity of normality tests with low degrees of freedom, large-scale studies (e.g. >100 subjects) exhibit more obvious deviations from these hypotheses and call for more refined models for statistical inference. Here, we demonstrate the benefits of robust regression as a tool for analyzing large neuroimaging cohorts. First, we use an analytic test based on robust parameter estimates; based on simulations, this procedure is shown to provide an accurate statistical control without resorting to permutations. Second, we show that robust regression yields more detections than standard algorithms using as an example an imaging genetics study with 392 subjects. Third, we show that robust regression can avoid false positives in a large-scale analysis of brain-behavior relationships with over 1500 subjects. Finally we embed robust regression in the Randomized Parcellation Based Inference (RPBI) method and demonstrate that this combination further improves the sensitivity of tests carried out across the whole brain. Altogether, our results show that robust procedures provide important advantages in large-scale neuroimaging group studies
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".