Comparison of piece‐wise linear, linear, and nonlinear atlas‐to‐patient warping techniques: Analysis of the labeling of subcortical nuclei for functional neurosurgical applications
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it