Shape anisotropy: tensor distance to anisotropy measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fractional anisotropy, defined as the distance of a diffusion tensor from its closest isotropic tensor, has been extensively studied as quantitative anisotropy measure for diffusion tensor magnetic resonance images (DT-MRI). It has been used to reveal the white matter profile of brain images, as guiding feature for seeding and stopping in fiber tractography and for the diagnosis and assessment of degenerative brain diseases. Despite its extensive use in DT-MRI community, however, not much attention has been given to the mathematical correctness of its derivation from diffusion tensors which is achieved using Euclidean dot product in 9D space. But, recent progress in DT-MRI has shown that the space of diffusion tensors does not form a Euclidean vector space and thus Euclidean dot product is not appropriate for tensors. In this paper, we propose a novel and robust rotationally invariant diffusion anisotropy measure derived using the recently proposed Log-Euclidean and J-divergence tensor distance measures. An interesting finding of our work is that given a diffusion tensor, its closest isotropic tensor is different for different tensor distance metrics used. We demonstrate qualitatively that our new anisotropy measure reveals superior white matter profile of DT-MR brain images and analytically show that it has a higher signal to noise ratio than fractional anisotropy.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".