Bias between MNI and Talairach coordinates analyzed using the ICBM‐152 brain template
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MNI coordinates determined using SPM2 and FSL/FLIRT with the ICBM-152 template were compared to Talairach coordinates determined using a landmark-based Talairach registration method (TAL). Analysis revealed a clear-cut bias in reference frames (origin, orientation) and scaling (brain size). Accordingly, ICBM-152 fitted brains were consistently larger, oriented more nose down, and translated slightly down relative to TAL fitted brains. Whole brain analysis of MNI/Talairach coordinate disparity revealed an ellipsoidal pattern with disparity ranging from zero at a point deep within the left hemisphere to greater than 1-cm for some anterior brain areas. MNI/Talairach coordinate disparity was generally less for brains fitted using FSL. The mni2tal transform generally reduced MNI/Talairach coordinate disparity for inferior brain areas but increased disparity for anterior, posterior, and superior areas. Coordinate disparity patterns differed for brain templates (MNI-305, ICBM-152) using the same fitting method (FSL/FLIRT) and for different fitting methods (SPM2, FSL/FLIRT) using the same template (ICBM-152). An MNI-to-Talairach (MTT) transform to correct for bias between MNI and Talairach coordinates was formulated using a best-fit analysis in one hundred high-resolution 3-D MR brain images. MTT transforms optimized for SPM2 and FSL were shown to reduced group mean MNI/Talairach coordinate disparity from a 5-13 mm to 1-2 mm for both deep and superficial brain sites. MTT transforms provide a validated means to convert MNI coordinates to Talairach compatible coordinates for studies using either SPM2 or FSL/FLIRT with the ICBM-152 template.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".