This analysis compares lag-one correlation in ordinary least squares residuals with maximum likelihood (ML) and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimates under an exact stationary Gaussian AR(1) model. It uses 64 selected voxels from each of six public ds000102 runs and a primary mean model with trial, drift, and motion terms. The six REML medians range from -0.013440 to 0.030169; five are positive, while all six residual-correlation medians are negative. In 2,000 synthetic series generated under the stated design and AR(1) assumptions, REML has smaller absolute mean bias and root mean square error than residual correlation and ML at all four tested input values. This is a narrow comparison in three selected participants. The measured input covariance is unknown. The model assumptions may be incorrect, and these results do not establish noise independence, biological causality, or correct task inference.
Filters: arxiv: physics.med-ph (Medical Physics) ×
Across 26 recorded run-2 designs from OpenNeuro ds000102, the median variance ratio for a common-amplitude estimator that rejects every permitted independent label choice increased as the specified AR(1) correlation rose from 0 to 0.8. Under ordinary least squares (OLS), the median Var(row_choice)/Var(field_A) ratio rose from 1.387835463705919 to 2.5393113361169393; under generalized least squares (GLS), it rose from 1.387835463705919 to 1.7940661777842406. At rho 0.8, GLS ratios ranged from 1.2645952292136082 to 3.559094256646758. These are conditional design calculations under unit marginal noise variance, not measured noise estimates. A descriptive check of 384 sampled time series from six raw images found negative spatial median lag-1 residual correlations, but fitted-design effects can produce similar negative residual moments under independent input noise. The analysis does not identify the displayed condition labels, true noise covariance, or neural amplitudes. The 26 participants are the design sample; the 2,080 model observations and sampled voxels are not independent participants.
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.
In six raw functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) images from ds000102, a label-insensitive row-choice task estimate differed from the mean of 24 fitted trial coefficients. In three run-2 images, the median absolute voxel differences were 0.558197, 0.624345, and 0.558825 percentage points. They ranged from 0.493643 to 0.766505 across planned model and mask checks. The analysis used three selected participants, uncorrected images, and a specified response and noise model. The trial mean is a model-dependent reference, not known biological ground truth. The sample, fixed run order, unverified run-2 arrow labels, mixed-tissue intensity masks, and lack of spatial correction limit interpretation. These measurements do not establish which estimate is biologically accurate or explain run differences.
This computational reproduction compares a new exact-rational calculation with the source exclusion results for supplied entropy focus criterion (EFC) values and expert image quality grades in OpenNeuro ds004173, version 1.0.2. All 155,480 prediction rows and 1,120 confusion tables agree, with zero differences in the specified fields. Only the HM2-to-HM1 transfer using subtracted EFC changed predictions under source-participant exclusion: six of 144 exclusions changed one or more predictions, with a maximum of 9 of 134 target predictions (6.716418%). The other three source and score combinations had no changed predictions. The 155,480 rows include repeated scans across calculations and two optimum rules; they are not independent observations. This is agreement for one fixed sample and rule, not a population result. The analysis did not calculate EFC from images or estimate uncertainty intervals. Missing scans, class imbalance, instructed rather than measured motion, and supplied expert grades limit interpretation; the results provide no evidence of biological causality or clinical performance.
In the Movement-Related ARTefacts (MR-ART) v1.0.2 dataset, we calculated a sufficient range of changes to participants’ standard entropy focus criterion (EFC) references for mean expert-grade agreement to remain higher than raw agreement, while grades and motion EFC values stay fixed. One reference change applies to the same participant in both head motion conditions, which have equal weight in the mean. Across the full sample of 148 participants, the sufficient condition is a change range below 0.0057072359681184. The corresponding limits are 0.0057388291952627 for 140 complete triplets and 0.006443288169841 for 119 participants with a standard scan graded 1. The limits are strict: equality is not included. The method gives a lower bound and can be conservative because condition-specific worst-case changes can conflict. The result applies to the recorded values and does not establish measurement accuracy, uncertainty for new participants, or actual standard-scan repeatability. MR-ART has one standard scan per participant, so repeat changes could not be measured. Artificial change tests are constructed checks, not repeat-scan observations.
We tested whether occupied event time improves channel list agreement across sleep recording dates. We used supplied FRandR marks from public OpenNeuro ds003498 version 1.0.1. The primary set had 135 records of 300 seconds from seven patients with depth-only implants. Each record selected ceil(10% of the channel count) channels. Overlap was expected Dice under independent uniform cutoff tie choices. We gave each date pair equal weight within patients and each patient equal weight. Mean overlap was 0.64324 for event counts and 0.63803 for occupied time. The change was -0.00521, with a descriptive 95% patient bootstrap interval of -0.08107 to 0.05810. The exact two-sided sign-reversal test gave p=0.9375 under independent patients and symmetric null contrasts. Four patient contrasts were positive, two were negative, and one was zero. The result does not show a clear mean gain or establish equivalence. Union time equaled summed duration in every observed channel map. We prove that occupied time stays unchanged when intervals are split or repeated with the same union. The proof assumes fixed coordinates, record limits, channel universes, and tie rules. The package holds source files, hashes, maps, code, proofs, results, figures, and reproduction commands. This is an annotation comparison in a reused cohort. Repeated timestamps and a SEEG/ECOG label conflict limit interpretation. It does not test clinical accuracy.
We tested whether shaft tips in one stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) implant deviate from bolt axes in a common direction. The analysis used OpenNeuro ds005083 v1.0.0 bolt and sorted-contact files from 60 implants in 58 pediatric patients, with 611 shafts in native post-operative CT space. A plan was written and hashed before deviation vectors were computed. For each shaft, we measured the deepest contact's direction away from the extended bolt axis. For each implant, R was the length of the mean unit direction. The null rotated each direction independently around its own bolt axis, preserving each shaft's axis and offset size. Across implants, mean observed R was 0.386 versus a null mean of 0.290 (one-sided group p = 0.0002, the smallest possible value with 5000 draws). Forty of 60 implants had R above their null mean, and 13 had per-implant p < 0.05. Results remained significant for shafts with offsets >= 1 mm (47 implants; p = 0.0002), for a post hoc null that retained the pooled direction (p = 0.0002), and when one implant per patient was used (58 implants; p = 0.0002). The pooled direction was mostly superior and partly anterior in native CT axes; planned tests found no posterior or inferior direction (p = 0.98 and 1.0). These findings show common within-implant directions beyond independent bends and a pooled superior component, but do not identify the cause. CT axes are not in standard space, the .dat x sign is uncertain, public surgical plans, prior-craniotomy labels, and CT timing are absent, and manual bolt-point placement could cause a common bias. The analysis therefore cannot establish whether brain shift, insertion force, or localization error caused the directions.
We tested a scale from three 1 mA pulses for forecasts of separate 2 mA SEEG pulses. The public STReEF sample had three patients, 31 stimulation sites, and 54 ordered conditions. The score used centered bipolar voltage from 20 to 500 ms. The correction reduced mean patient error by 32.21% against simple doubling. However, doubling the corrected template increased error by 26.54% against the same corrected template without doubling. Error was higher in each patient. The corrected doubled forecast also had 12.36% more error than zero on average. Secondary pulse counts and loss weights kept the current-ratio result unfavorable. All 540 selected source ranges were retrieved again. Rebuilt arrays matched exactly. All 16,912 direct voltage error checks passed. A separate analysis replay gave identical numerical files. The package contains four figures, all scores, code, source versions, hashes, and reproduction instructions. Current was linked to recording time. This descriptive test reuses prior test pulses. It does not establish a causal current law or live BCI performance.
The MR-ART v1.0.2 tables contain one standard scan per participant, so they cannot estimate standard-scan measurement-error variance from two acquisitions. We checked five source files (503,129 bytes) against their recorded sizes and SHA-256 hashes. The tables contain 436 scans from 148 participants and 140 complete standard/HM1/HM2 triplets. In the fixed sample, standard subtraction increased EFC AUC from 0.7353672316384181 to 0.8436158192090395 for HM1 and from 0.7000745156482862 to 0.8129657228017884 for HM2. These point results have no population uncertainty estimate; earlier intervals were not recalculated. A sample covariance identity and Decimal checks agree within stated numerical tolerances. Artificial moment models and deterministic checks show how a two-standard contrast can estimate unshared standard error under equal-variance and independence assumptions, and how shared or dependent errors violate that interpretation. No second standards were measured. The proposed future comparison and participant bootstrap remain unperformed. Results are limited by the single scanner and protocol, missing motion scans, one expert grade per scan, and possible anatomy, background, processing, acquisition-order, and rating effects. Two standards cannot identify fixed or shared processing error.
In this fixed MR-ART sample, excluding one additional source participant changed decisions only for HM2-to-HM1 transfer with subtracted entropy focus criterion (EFC). Six of 144 source exclusions changed at least one of 134 target decisions; two exclusions each changed nine decisions (6.716418%). The other three tested settings had no decision changes. Across 436 scans from 148 participants, the test trained a maximum-balanced-accuracy threshold on the other motion condition, excluding the target participant from training. All target scans and scores stayed fixed. A separate Decimal check covered 155,480 decisions and 1,120 count tables; the isolated package reproduced nine numerical outputs. This is sample sensitivity, not a confidence interval, biological explanation, or clinical validation. The data use one scanner and protocol, single expert grades, and only grade-2 and grade-3 motion scans. The analysis does not recalculate EFC from images or test other scanners, repeated ratings, or multiple source exclusions.
This study tested whether an EFC threshold trained to reach at least 95% sensitivity for grade-3 scans in one MR-ART head-motion condition retained that sensitivity in the other condition, and whether subtracting each participant’s standard-scan EFC changed transfer results. The analysis used supplied MRIQC 0.16.1 metrics and expert grades from OpenNeuro ds004173 version 1.0.2: 436 scans from 148 participants, with 278 motion scans graded 2 or 3. For each target participant, the threshold was the (floor(P/20) + 1)-th increasing grade-3 training score after excluding that participant, where P is the number of positive training observations. Across-condition sensitivity for subtracted EFC was 61/75 (81.33%) from HM2 to HM1 and 121/122 (99.18%) from HM1 to HM2; the HM2-to-HM1 result was below the 95% training target. The 5,000-draw participant bootstrap gave pointwise limits of 0.718739–0.948718 for that sensitivity. Equal-condition mean sensitivity changed from 0.931803 for raw EFC to 0.902568 for subtracted EFC, while mean specificity changed from 0.226117 to 0.353621; both intervals for changes included zero. These results apply to this rule and sample. They do not establish performance in new participants, clinical accuracy, or a cause for the transfer difference. The source study used one scanner and protocol, and this analysis did not measure motion or recalculate metrics from images.
In 8,000 eligible scan pairs from 288 motion scans in the MR-ART dataset, total SNR had a higher rank probability than CJV (0.851000 vs 0.826750). An exact finite-table analysis found that four selected grade changes between grades 2 and 3 are the minimum needed to reverse that order; no set of three or fewer permitted changes does so. Two within-instruction exchanges (four labels changed) also reverse the order while keeping grade counts fixed. These are counterfactual labels, not new expert observations or estimates of label error. The result applies only to the analyzed tables and rules. It does not establish a population order, error rate, or clinical effect.
We measured the change in HFO rate order between two 150-second halves of public SEEG sleep records. We used OpenNeuro ds003498 version 1.1.1. The primary test used overlapping ripple and fast ripple marks on bipolar pairs with at least 20 marks per record. It included 106 records and 591 pair comparisons from eight patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. A strict order inversion had loss 1. A tie had loss 0.5. Agreement had loss 0. The mean loss, with equal weight for each patient, was 0.340. The exact reference mean was 0.253 under independent uniform event times with each full count fixed. The difference was 0.087. Its descriptive 95% patient bootstrap interval was -0.016 to 0.213. Six patients had positive differences, but two large differences drove much of the cohort mean. An added simulation check placed the observed score above all 20,000 model draws. This check applies to the fixed records and the model assumptions. It does not establish a population effect. The package provides the exact reference method, all planned checks, source marks and metadata, public retrieval recipes, code, figures, and an exact offline repeat. All 1,123 source files passed a fresh public source check. The study measures released marks. It does not test surgical outcomes.
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 analysis tests whether entropy focus criterion (EFC) thresholds selected in one MR-ART head-motion condition transfer to the other. It uses OpenNeuro ds004173 v1.0.2 and 278 motion scans with grade 2 or 3 from 147 participants. For each target scan, all source scans from that participant are excluded while selecting the threshold. The equal-weight mean balanced accuracy changes from 0.700563 for raw EFC to 0.726553 after subtracting each participant’s standard-scan EFC. The paired change is +0.025990 (pointwise 95% participant-bootstrap interval −0.081390 to +0.219474), which includes zero. Condition-specific changes are mixed: +0.055706 for HM1 and −0.003726 for HM2. In HM2, sensitivity rises while the correct grade-2 count falls from 20 of 22 to 11 of 22. The HM2 change direction is sensitive to restricting the sample to complete scan triplets. These results do not show a population benefit, biological causality, or future clinical performance. They come from one scanner and protocol, requested head motion, a three-point image grade, and one researcher’s checks; HM2 includes only 22 eligible grade-2 scans.
We examined whether earlier entropy focus criterion (EFC) grade agreement findings in the Movement-related artefacts (MR-ART) MRI dataset persisted under sample changes and single evaluation exclusions. Using MRIQC 0.16.1 tables for 148 participants, we compared grade-2/grade-3 ordering for raw head-motion scores, same-participant standard subtraction, and 20,000 generated reference controls per sample. In the full sample, complete-triplet sample (140 donors), and standard-grade-1 sample (119 donors), each own-subtraction mean exceeded all generated controls in both all-participant and same-standard-grade schemes. Own means were 0.828290771, 0.821818583, and 0.833473389, respectively. All 147 single evaluation exclusions also remained above every control in both fixed control banks. These results cover the specified samples and generated control banks; they do not cover all possible permutations or provide population confidence intervals. The analysis uses the same dataset on which EFC was selected, so it gives no independent biological validation. The conditional p-values do not correct for earlier metric selection, and the arithmetic does not establish reference exchangeability. Each participant has only one standard scan, so the data cannot estimate within-participant standard repeat error variance.
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 147 participants with standard MR-ART scans graded 1 (good) or 2 (medium), the rank probabilities for coefficient of joint variation (CJV), entropy focus criterion (EFC), and total signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were 0.546819, 0.541116, and 0.539016, respectively, for the prespecified worse-quality order. Each pointwise 95% participant-bootstrap interval included 0.5, and all pairwise metric-difference intervals included zero. These intervals do not establish no information, equality between metrics, or a population rank probability of 0.5. The primary comparison used 3,332 pairs from 147 participants, 5,000 participant bootstrap draws, and the recorded directions (higher CJV and EFC, lower total SNR indicate worse quality). Secondary grade comparisons, checks against three stored results from an earlier contribution, and their limits are reported in the full text. The study uses healthy adults, one scanner, instructed motion, one expert grade per scan, and only 28 grade-2 standard scans; it does not test a classifier or clinical threshold.
This study compares fMRI design vectors generated from two conflicting condition fields in OpenNeuro ds000102 snapshot 00001. The data include 26 participants and two runs each; no measured brain signal was analyzed. In run 2, the fields disagree on 304 of 624 trials. Under the specified model, the mean of 26 squared residual-contrast correlations is 0.05967342177587536 (median 0.034567927521668235; range 0.0000054682644110348634–0.25100659813081516), and nine signed correlations are negative. All run-1 contrasts agree exactly. Across eight prespecified model settings, mean run-2 squared correlation ranges from 0.05582115411772058 to 0.06287962693164471. These values describe model vectors, not measured brain variance or neural effects. The package retains all trial rows, source hashes, original analysis code, results, and method checks. The presented stimuli remain unknown, so the study cannot establish which field is correct. Motion, censoring, noise correlation, and actual brain effects were not tested.