MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071487504 · doi:10.1097/rmr.0b013e318267fe94

Atlas Learning in Fetal Brain Development

2011· review· en· W2071487504 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersÖsterreichischen Akademie der WissenschaftenEuropean Commission
KeywordsPopulationMagnetic resonance imagingAtlas (anatomy)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceBrain anatomyRelevance (law)Data scienceMachine learningMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging has become an important noninvasive technique to gain insight into fetal brain development. Its capabilities go beyond ultrasound when diagnosing high-risk pregnancies. To summarize observations across a population in magnetic resonance imaging studies, reference systems such as atlases that establish correspondences across a cohort are key. In this article, we review the evolution of atlas-building methods in light of their relevance, limitations, and benefits for the modeling of human brain development. Starting with single anatomical templates to which brain scans where mapped to such as Talairach and Montreal Neurological Institute space, we explore the uses of atlases as a means to establish correspondences across a cohort and as a model that captures the population characteristics of the cases the atlas is built from. We discuss methods that capture features of increasingly heterogeneous populations and approaches that are able to generalize with only minimal annotation. The main focus of this review are methods that explicitly model the variability in the population with regard to time, such as in the modeling of disease progression and brain development. We highlight the applicability and limitations of state-of-the art approaches, how insights from the study of disease progression are helpful in developmental studies, and point to the directions of future research that is still necessary.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.266 · 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