In the fixed OpenNeuro MR-ART sample, jointly excluding two source participants changed target grades even when excluding either participant alone did not. In raw EFC transfer from HM1 to HM2, one pair changed 6 of 144 predictions; each of the two single exclusions changed none. Across both transfer directions and raw and standard-scan-subtracted EFC, pair exclusions changed predictions in 1, 1, 28, and 750 pairs, respectively. The result is a fixed-sample sensitivity finding under the documented threshold rule, not a population estimate, biological explanation, or general proof. The analysis used expert grades and supplied MRIQC EFC values; it did not recalculate image metrics. All reported sample details, exact accuracy results, checks, assumptions, limitations, and source records are in the main text and archived files.
An independently written integer score and binary-search program was compared with a prior floating-point analysis of the same MR-ART v1.0.2 tables and saved reference assignments. It matched all 120,000 control counts and all 12 raw or own-reference rows; none of 783 comparison checks failed, and the maximum absolute difference in compared numerical fields was 0.0. For entropy focus criterion (EFC), the own-reference mean agreement exceeded the maximum of 10,000 controls under each of two reference schemes, with zero exceedances in each scheme. The plus-one Monte Carlo values were 1/10001 before adjustment and 6/10001 after Holm adjustment. This is an arithmetic reproduction on fixed tables, not a new sample or a test of reference exchangeability, population uncertainty, causality, processing effects, or clinical thresholds. The work uses source files recorded as OpenNeuro ds004173 v1.0.2 and preserves their hashes and source URLs.
This study tests whether the order of three image-quality rank probabilities in the MR-ART dataset changes after removing any one or two participants. It partially reproduces four of 40 endpoint-metric records from an earlier publication: all 51 compared numeric fields agree exactly, including four main records and three bootstrap differences. Across 8,000 eligible scan pairs, rank probabilities were 0.851000 for total signal-to-noise ratio, 0.826750 for the coefficient of joint variation, and 0.714375 for the entropy focus criterion. All 148 single-participant and 10,878 two-participant removals kept this order. The full-sample 95% bootstrap interval for the total-SNR minus CJV difference includes zero, so the removal results do not establish a higher population rank probability for total SNR. Results apply only to the fixed tables, grades, metric directions, and pair rules; they do not exclude effects from larger removals or changed ratings.
In 140 complete MR-ART participant triplets, the Pearson correlation between EFC values for the HM1 and HM2 motion conditions was 0.848 before subtracting each participant’s standard-scan value from both conditions and 0.513 after subtraction (difference −0.335; 95% participant-bootstrap interval −0.459 to −0.218). CJV changed from 0.642 to 0.607, and total SNR from 0.640 to 0.640. Shared and separate reference-permutation controls changed the correlation distributions while keeping motion pairings fixed. The analysis used MRIQC 0.16.1 measures from OpenNeuro ds004173 version 1.0.2 and did not process MRI volumes. The result is limited to the available tables, one scanner and acquisition protocol, instructed nodding, and the 140 complete triplets; HM1 and HM2 have different instructions, so their correlation is not an intraclass reliability estimate. The findings do not establish biological cause, repeatability, clinical utility, or transfer to another scanner.
This fixed sensitivity analysis compares raw MRIQC scores with subtraction of 0.5 or 1 times each participant's standard-scan reference in OpenNeuro MR-ART ds004173 v1.0.2. The grade-rank comparison includes 278 motion scans from 147 participants, with grades 2 and 3, across HM1 and HM2; these conditions use five and ten head-nod instructions and do not measure head movement. The two conditions have equal weight in the mean. Half subtraction gives higher mean rank AUC than full subtraction for CJV (0.803759 vs 0.768333) and total SNR (0.840003 vs 0.783334). For EFC, half subtraction is higher than raw (0.785530 vs 0.717721) and lower than full subtraction (0.828291). The 95% pointwise participant-bootstrap interval for half minus full is [0.011973, 0.061423] for CJV, [-0.110832, 0.024260] for EFC, and [0.022721, 0.092644] for total SNR. The interval for EFC and the intervals for half minus raw CJV and SNR include zero. These intervals have no multiple-comparison adjustment. The analysis does not establish equivalent performance, an optimized weight, or a clinical rule. It uses one scanner and protocol, grades 2 and 3 only, and data used in earlier metric selection; there is no external test sample. The supplied metrics were not recalculated from images.
In 436 MR-ART scans from 148 participants, this rank reanalysis compared MRIQC CJV, EFC, and total SNR for expert grade 3 versus grade 2 scans from different participants within each instructed motion condition. It evaluated raw metrics and values centered on each participant’s standard scan. Across HM1 and HM2, with equal weight for each condition, reference subtraction raised EFC AUC from 0.718 to 0.828 (change 0.111; participant-cluster bootstrap 95% CI 0.018 to 0.205), lowered CJV AUC from 0.815 to 0.768 (change −0.047; 95% CI −0.087 to −0.009), and lowered total SNR AUC from 0.842 to 0.783 (change −0.059; 95% CI −0.122 to 0.002). These descriptive results show metric-dependent changes in this sample; they do not establish clinical thresholds or generalization. The analysis uses 10,000 participant-cluster bootstrap draws and the version-pinned OpenNeuro ds004173 v1.0.2 summary tables. It also independently recounts six selected prior point-count claims. This is a partial count reproduction, not a reproduction of earlier intervals, classifiers, or MRIQC image processing. Limitations include one scanner and protocol, instructed motion, one coarse expert rating per scan, missing motion scans, variable reference quality, and no modeled scanner or rater uncertainty.