MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076133825 · doi:10.1002/hbm.20780

Comparison of piece‐wise linear, linear, and nonlinear atlas‐to‐patient warping techniques: Analysis of the labeling of subcortical nuclei for functional neurosurgical applications

2009· article· en· W2076133825 on OpenAlexaff
M. Mallar Chakravarty, Abbas F. Sadikot, Jürgen Germann, Pierre Hellier, Gilles Bertrand, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage warpingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceAtlas (anatomy)Brain atlasNonlinear systemPattern recognition (psychology)Linear modelComputer visionAnatomyMedicineMachine learningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital atlases are commonly used in pre-operative planning in functional neurosurgical procedures performed to minimize the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. These atlases can be customized to fit an individual patient's anatomy through atlas-to-patient warping procedures. Once fitted to pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, the customized atlas can be used to plan and navigate surgical procedures. Linear, piece-wise linear and nonlinear registration methods have been used to customize different digital atlases with varying accuracies. Our goal was to evaluate eight different registration methods for atlas-to-patient customization of a new digital atlas of the basal ganglia and thalamus to demonstrate the value of nonlinear registration for automated atlas-based subcortical target identification in functional neurosurgery. In this work, we evaluate the accuracy of two automated linear techniques, two piece-wise linear techniques (requiring the identification of manually placed anatomical landmarks), and four different automated nonlinear atlas-to-patient warping techniques (where two of the four nonlinear techniques are variants of the ANIMAL algorithm). Since a gold standard of the subcortical anatomy is not available, manual segmentations of the striatum, globus pallidus, and thalamus are used to derive a silver standard for evaluation. Four different metrics, including the kappa statistic, the mean distance between the surfaces, the maximum distance between surfaces, and the total structure volume are used to compare the warping techniques. The results show that nonlinear techniques perform statistically better than linear and piece-wise linear techniques. In addition, the results demonstrate statistically significant differences between the nonlinear techniques, with the ANIMAL algorithm yielding better results.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations73
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207