MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968326787 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117759

Voxel-Based Texture Analysis of the Brain

2015· article· en· W1968326787 on OpenAlexafffund
Rouzbeh Maani, Yee Hong Yang, Sanjay Kalra

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesKillam TrustsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsVoxelPattern recognition (psychology)Voxel-based morphometryArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTexture (cosmology)Statistical analysisMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingMathematicsStatisticsRadiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel voxel-based method for texture analysis of brain images. Texture analysis is a powerful quantitative approach for analyzing voxel intensities and their interrelationships, but has been thus far limited to analyzing regions of interest. The proposed method provides a 3D statistical map comparing texture features on a voxel-by-voxel basis. The validity of the method was examined on artificially generated effects as well as on real MRI data in Alzheimer's Disease (AD). The artificially generated effects included hyperintense and hypointense signals added to T1-weighted brain MRIs from 30 healthy subjects. The AD dataset included 30 patients with AD and 30 age/sex matched healthy control subjects. The proposed method detected artificial effects with high accuracy and revealed statistically significant differences between the AD and control groups. This paper extends the usage of texture analysis beyond the current region of interest analysis to voxel-by-voxel 3D statistical mapping and provides a hypothesis-free analysis tool to study cerebral pathology in neurological diseases.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207