Reliable Identification of Deep Sulcal Pits: The Effects of Scan Session, Scanner, and Surface Extraction Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulcal pit analysis has been providing novel insights into brain function and development. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of sulcal pit extraction with respect to the effects of scan session, scanner, and surface extraction tool. Five subjects were scanned 4 times at 3 MRI centers and other 5 subjects were scanned 3 times at 2 MRI centers, including 1 test-retest session. Sulcal pits were extracted on the white matter surfaces reconstructed with both Montreal Neurological Institute and Freesurfer pipelines. We estimated similarity of the presence of sulcal pits having a maximum value of 1 and their spatial difference within the same subject. The tests showed high similarity of the sulcal pit presence and low spatial difference. The similarity was more than 0.90 and the spatial difference was less than 1.7 mm in most cases according to different scan sessions or scanners, and more than 0.85 and about 2.0 mm across surface extraction tools. The reliability of sulcal pit extraction was more affected by the image processing-related factors than the scan session or scanner factors. Moreover, the similarity of sulcal pit distribution appeared to be largely influenced by the presence or absence of the sulcal pits on the shallow and small folds. We suggest that our sulcal pit extraction from MRI is highly reliable and could be useful for clinical applications as an imaging biomarker.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".