MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1857416707 · doi:10.1007/11866565_41

Realistic Simulated MRI and SPECT Databases

2006· article· en· W1857416707 on OpenAlexaff
Bérengère Aubert-Broche, Christophe Grova, Anthonin Reilhac, Alan C. Evans, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIctalImage registrationIctal-Interictal SPECT Analysis by SPMArtificial intelligenceSpect imagingNeuroimagingPattern recognition (psychology)Nuclear medicineEpilepsyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the construction of simulated SPECT and MRI databases that account for realistic anatomical and functional variability. The data is used as a gold-standard to evaluate four SPECT/MRI similarity-based registration methods. Simulation realism was accounted for using accurate physical models of data generation and acquisition. MRI and SPECT simulations were generated from three subjects to take into account inter-subject anatomical variability. Functional SPECT data were computed from six functional models of brain perfusion. Previous models of normal perfusion and ictal perfusion observed in Mesial Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (MTLE) were considered to generate functional variability. We studied the impact noise and intensity non-uniformity in MRI simulations and SPECT scatter correction may have on registration accuracy. We quantified the amount of registration error caused by anatomical and functional variability. Registration involving ictal data was less accurate than registration involving normal data. MR intensity nonuniformity was the main factor decreasing registration accuracy. The proposed simulated database is promising to evaluate many functional neuroimaging methods, involving MRI and SPECT data.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLecture notes in computer scienceSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207