Feature-Based Morphometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents feature-based morphometry (FBM), a new, fully data-driven technique for identifying group-related differences in volumetric imagery. In contrast to most morphometry methods which assume one-to-one correspondence between all subjects, FBM models images as a collage of distinct, localized image features which may not be present in all subjects. FBM thus explicitly accounts for the case where the same anatomical tissue cannot be reliably identified in all subjects due to disease or anatomical variability. A probabilistic model describes features in terms of their appearance, geometry, and relationship to subgroups of a population, and is automatically learned from a set of subject images and group labels. Features identified indicate group-related anatomical structure that can potentially be used as disease biomarkers or as a basis for computer-aided diagnosis. Scale-invariant image features are used, which reflect generic, salient patterns in the image. Experiments validate FBM clinically in the analysis of normal (NC) and Alzheimer's (AD) brain images using the freely available OASIS database. FBM automatically identifies known structural differences between NC and AD subjects in a fully data-driven fashion, and obtains an equal error classification rate of 0.78 on new subjects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".