Impact of scale space search on age- and gender-related changes in MRI-based cortical morphometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In magnetic resonance imaging based brain morphometry, Gaussian smoothing is often applied to increase the signal-to-noise ratio and to increase the detection power of statistical parametric maps. However, most existing studies used a single smoothing filter without adequately justifying their choices. In this article, we want to determine the extent for which performing a morphometry analysis using multiple smoothing filters, namely conducting a scale space search, improves or decreases the detection power. We first compared scale space search with single-filter analysis through a simulated population study. The multiple comparisons in our four-dimensional scale space searches were corrected for using a unified P-value approach. Our results illustrate that, compared with a single-filter analysis, a scale space search analysis can properly capture the variations in analysis results caused by variations in smoothing, and more importantly, it can obviously increase the sensitivity for detecting brain morphometric changes. We also show that the cost of an increased critical threshold for conducting a scale space search is very small. In the second experiment, we investigated age and gender effects on cortical volume, thickness, and surface area in 104 normal subjects using scale space search. The obtained results provide a perspective of scale space theory on the morphological changes with age and gender. These results suggest that, in exploratory studies of aging, gender, and disease, conducting a scale space search is essential, if we are to produce a complete description of the structural changes or abnormalities associated with these dimensions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".