Retrospective evaluation of intersubject brain registration
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
Although numerous methods to register brains of different individuals have been proposed, no work has been done, as far as we know, to evaluate and objectively compare the performances of different nonrigid (or elastic) registration methods on the same database of subjects. In this paper, we propose an evaluation framework, based on global and local measures of the relevance of the registration. We have chosen to focus more particularly on the matching of cortical areas, since intersubject registration methods are dedicated to anatomical and functional normalization, and also because other groups have shown the relevance of such registration methods for deep brain structures. Experiments were conducted using 6 methods on a database of 18 subjects. The global measures used show that the quality of the registration is directly related to the transformation's degrees of freedom. More surprisingly, local measures based on the matching of cortical sulci did not show significant differences between rigid and non rigid methods.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it