MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084775462 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2012.184

3D Stochastic Completion Fields for Mapping Connectivity in Diffusion MRI

2012· article· en· W2084775462 on OpenAlexafffund
Parya MomayyezSiahkal, Kaleem Siddiqi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsSpherical harmonicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProbability density functionAlgorithmInvariant (physics)Orientation (vector space)Imaging phantomComputer visionMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2D stochastic completion field algorithm, introduced by Williams and Jacobs [1], [2], uses a directional random walk to model the prior probability of completion curves in the plane. This construct has had a powerful impact in computer vision, where it has been used to compute the shapes of likely completion curves between edge fragments in visual imagery. Motivated by these developments, we extend the algorithm to 3D, using a spherical harmonics basis to achieve a rotation invariant computational solution to the Fokker-Planck equation describing the evolution of the probability density function underlying the model. This provides a principled way to compute 3D completion patterns and to derive connectivity measures for orientation data in 3D, as arises in 3D tracking, motion capture, and medical imaging. We demonstrate the utility of the approach for the particular case of diffusion magnetic resonance imaging, where we derive connectivity maps for synthetic data, on a physical phantom and on an in vivo high angular resolution diffusion image of a human brain.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207