Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add "ParameterURL" metadata field #101

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 15, 2024
Merged

Add "ParameterURL" metadata field #101

merged 2 commits into from
May 15, 2024

Conversation

Lestropie
Copy link
Collaborator

One aspect of the "model fit parameters" vs. "model-derived parameters" distinction is that sometimes an individual can propose taking the outcomes of some model fitting process and compute some novel derivative measure from those data, and the relevant reference for that derived parameter may be different to that of the model itself. Eg. The original 1994 DTI paper doesn't present FA.

With #92, metadata relating to "the model" is encapsulated within its own metadata dictionary, and there a URL can be provided for the model. With this PR I propose that in some instances it may be desired to provide a URL that describes just the specific parameter that is encoded in the corresponding data file.

@Lestropie Lestropie mentioned this pull request May 15, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@arokem arokem left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe that the one comment I have just proves that this is a good idea 😄

@@ -393,7 +394,8 @@ Dictionary `"ResponseFunction"` has the following reserved keywords:
"FitMethod": "ols",
"OutlierRejectionmethod": "None"
}
}
},
"ParameterURL": "https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.1940080707"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Small quibble, but maybe this one is a better reference?

Suggested change
"ParameterURL": "https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.1940080707"
"ParameterURL": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2011.09.022"

I believe it's the first reference to the 0-1 normalized FA

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Lestropie Lestropie May 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd always had it in my mind that the right citation for FA was the 1996 one. I was just looking through my Zotero and saw the 1995 one, questioned it, found this, and thought maybe all my citations of the 1996 one were erroneous:

FA_1995

I had not realised that it's different to the 1996 one:

FA_1996

Is the first one then a mathematical error?

@arokem
Copy link
Collaborator

arokem commented May 15, 2024

Oh - interesting! Yes, I think that the 1995 is the correct reference here, and also yes: I think that paper has a math error in it (I see no other explanation). Funny.

@arokem arokem merged commit 37b1bad into bep-016 May 15, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants