MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2429763096 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0000000000000488

A study of brain white matter plasticity in early blinds using tract-based spatial statistics and tract statistical analysis

2015· article· en· W2429763096 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Lao, Yue Kang, Olivier Collignon, Caroline Brun, Shadi B. Kheibai, Flamine Alary, James C. Gee, Marvin D. Nelson, Franco Leporé, Natasha Leporé

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
KeywordsWhite matterDiffusion MRINeurosciencePsychologyMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early blind individuals are known to exhibit structural brain reorganization. Particularly, early-onset blindness may trigger profound brain alterations that affect not only the visual system but also the remaining sensory systems. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) allows in-vivo visualization of brain white matter connectivity, and has been extensively used to study brain white matter structure. Among statistical approaches based on DTI, tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) is widely used because of its ability to automatically perform whole brain white matter studies. Tract specific analysis (TSA) is a more recent method that localizes changes in specific white matter bundles. In the present study, we compare TBSS and TSA results of DTI scans from 12 early blind individuals and 13 age-matched sighted controls, with two aims: (a) to investigate white matter alterations associated with early visual deprivation; (b) to examine the relative sensitivity of TSA when compared with TBSS, for both deficit and hypertrophy of white matter microstructures. Both methods give consistent results for broad white matter regions of deficits. However, TBSS does not detect hypertrophy of white matter, whereas TSA shows a higher sensitivity in detecting subtle differences in white matter colocalized to the posterior parietal lobe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207