Generating a Minimal Set of Templates for the Hippocampal Region in MR Neuroimages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We detail a procedure for generating a set of templates for the hippocampal region in magnetic resonance (MR) images, representative of the clinical conditions of the population under investigation. METHODS: The first step is robust standardization of the intensity scale of brain MR images, belonging to patients with different degrees of neuropathology (Alzheimer's disease). So similar tissues have similar intensities, even across images coming from different sources. After the automatic extraction of the hippocampal region from a large dataset of images, we address template generation, choosing by clusterization methods a small number of the extracted regions. RESULTS: We assess that template generation is largely independent on the clusterization method and on the number and the clinical condition of the patients. The templates are chosen as the most representative images in a population. The estimation of the "minimum" number of templates for the hippocampal region can be proposed, using a metric based on the geometrical position of the extracted regions. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a simple and easily reproducible procedure to generate templates for the hippocampal region. It can be generalized and applied to other brain regions, which may be relevant for neuroimaging studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".