MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157026160 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2004.831204

Object-Based Morphometry of the Cerebral Cortex

2004· article· en· W2157026160 on OpenAlexaff
J.-F. Mangin, Denis Rivière, Arnaud Cachia, Édouard Duchesnay, Yann Cointepas, Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos, D. Louis Collins, Alan C. Evans, Jean Régis

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSulcusComputer scienceCentral sulcusVoxelComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)GyrusCortex (anatomy)Brain morphometryCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionVoxel-based morphometryObject (grammar)NeuroscienceMotor cortexBiologyMagnetic resonance imagingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the approaches dedicated to automatic morphometry rely on a point-by-point strategy based on warping each brain toward a reference coordinate system. In this paper, we describe an alternative object-based strategy dedicated to the cortex. This strategy relies on an artificial neuroanatomist performing automatic recognition of the main cortical sulci and parcellation of the cortical surface into gyral patches. A set of shape descriptors, which can be compared across subjects, is then attached to the sulcus and gyrus related objects segmented by this process. The framework is used to perform a study of 142 brains of the International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM) database. This study reveals some correlates of handedness on the size of the sulci located in motor areas, which was not detected previously using standard voxel based morphometry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations155
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207