MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542557450 · doi:10.1002/hbm.22478

Investigation of morphometric variability of subthalamic nucleus, red nucleus, and substantia nigra in advanced Parkinson's disease patients using automatic segmentation and PCA‐based analysis

2014· article· en· W1542557450 on OpenAlexafffund
Yiming Xiao, Pierre Jannin, Tiziano D’Albis, Nicolas Guizard, Claire Haegelen, Florent Lalys, Marc Vérin, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSubthalamic nucleusDeep brain stimulationRed nucleusParkinson's diseaseSubstantia nigraNeurosciencePrincipal component analysisNucleusSegmentationNuclear medicineMedicineArtificial intelligencePsychologyPattern recognition (psychology)PathologyComputer scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective surgical therapy to treat Parkinson's disease (PD). Conventional methods employ standard atlas coordinates to target the STN, which, along with the adjacent red nucleus (RN) and substantia nigra (SN), are not well visualized on conventional T1w MRIs. However, the positions and sizes of the nuclei may be more variable than the standard atlas, thus making the pre-surgical plans inaccurate. We investigated the morphometric variability of the STN, RN and SN by using label-fusion segmentation results from 3T high resolution T2w MRIs of 33 advanced PD patients. In addition to comparing the size and position measurements of the cohort to the Talairach atlas, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to acquire more intuitive and detailed perspectives of the measured variability. Lastly, the potential correlation between the variability shown by PCA results and the clinical scores was explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207