Robust Intensity Standardization in Brain Magnetic Resonance Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper is focused on a tiSsue-Based Standardization Technique (SBST) of magnetic resonance (MR) brain images. Magnetic Resonance Imaging intensities have no fixed tissue-specific numeric meaning, even within the same MRI protocol, for the same body region, or even for images of the same patient obtained on the same scanner in different moments. This affects postprocessing tasks such as automatic segmentation or unsupervised/supervised classification methods, which strictly depend on the observed image intensities, compromising the accuracy and efficiency of many image analyses algorithms. A large number of MR images from public databases, belonging to healthy people and to patients with different degrees of neurodegenerative pathology, were employed together with synthetic MRIs. Combining both histogram and tissue-specific intensity information, a correspondence is obtained for each tissue across images. The novelty consists of computing three standardizing transformations for the three main brain tissues, for each tissue class separately. In order to create a continuous intensity mapping, spline smoothing of the overall slightly discontinuous piecewise-linear intensity transformation is performed. The robustness of the technique is assessed in a post hoc manner, by verifying that automatic segmentation of images before and after standardization gives a high overlapping (Dice index >0.9) for each tissue class, even across images coming from different sources. Furthermore, SBST efficacy is tested by evaluating if and how much it increases intertissue discrimination and by assessing gaussianity of tissue gray-level distributions before and after standardization. Some quantitative comparisons to already existing different approaches available in the literature are performed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".