Evaluation of performance metrics for bias field correction in MR brain images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate inconsistencies between common performance measures for bias field correction reported in several recent studies and propose a solution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of synthetic images of a normal brain from the Montréal Simulated Brain Database (SBD) was processed using two bias field correction algorithms. The parameters of these algorithms were varied and the resulting outputs were assessed using several performance measures. Validity was estimated using Spearman rank correlation coefficient between "indirect" performance measures and the L2 norm of the difference between true and estimated bias fields. The "indirect" performance measures tested were: coefficients of variation of white matter (WM) and gray matter (GM), coefficient of joint variation. These measures were tested on bias field-corrected images that were permuted in terms of quality of WM/GM segmentation as well as the presence or absence of light smoothing. RESULTS: Existing indirect performance measures yielded poor validity scores, explaining the inconsistencies reported in the literature. Image noise and inappropriate inclusion of partial volume voxels and neighboring tissues were found to be contributory. Combining conservative segmentation and smoothing significantly improved validity. CONCLUSION: The use of indirect performance measures in the conventional manner to guide bias field correction is unreliable. Using these metrics on lightly smoothed images with conservatively segmented tissues proved more reliable for guiding the selecting of parameters for nonuniformity correction ultimately contributing to more accurate brain segmentation.
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 | 0.032 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".