MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016628198 · doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00369

Mapping the development of white matter tracts with diffusion tensor imaging

2002· article· en· W2016628198 on OpenAlexaff
Tie‐Qiang Li, Michael D. Noseworthy

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffusion MRICorpus callosumWhite matterFractional anisotropyPsychologyGyrusNeuroscienceAudiologyMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, the development of white matter was studied using an optimized diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) protocol in 20 normal subjects (10–40 years old). The normal development of white matter tracts was addressed by comparing the diffusion anisotropy results between two sub‐groups: eight adults (26–38 years old) and eight adolescents (13–15 years old). The difference in myelination extent between these two groups as indexed by the fractional anisotropy was identified by conducting a studentt‐test of the measured diffusion anisotropy maps. Significant differences (p< 0.01) were detected in the gyrus frontalis medialis (GFM), gyrus temporalis medialis (GTM) and gyrus cinguli (GC), in addition to the developmental changes in corpus callosum. A brief overview of previous published DTI studies in developmental science and current progress in DTI techniques is also given at the end of this paper. It may be useful for readers interested in using DTI to study developmental problems but who are not familiar with the various technical aspects.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental ScienceSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207