MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1564686934 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2015.7164024

Comparison of structural connectivity metrics for multimodal brain image analysis

2015· article· en· W1564686934 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Bajammal, Burak Yoldemir, Rafeef Abugharbieh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceResting state fMRIFunctional connectivityArtificial intelligenceNeuroimagingPopularityPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multimodal brain image analysis is gaining popularity as exemplified in the recent surge of techniques dedicated to fusing structural and functional connectivity information. The performance of such endeavors relies on the metrics used to quantify connection strength. Compared to functional connectivity (FC) metrics, structural connectivity (SC) metrics received less scrutiny by the neuroimaging community despite being widely utilized in the literature. In this paper, we analyze the performance of commonly used SC metrics. Specifically, we analyze the relationship between SC and FC during resting-state and different tasks with the assumption of an inherent dependence between brain structure and function. Among the tested metrics, we show that parcel volume-normalized fiber count correlates best with FC, and that total fiber length has the least bias in favor of shorter distances between brain regions. We also show relatively consistent SC-FC correlation across tasks, supporting the notion that SC constitutes the backbone of brain connectivity facilitating a diverse repertoire of functional connectivity patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→