On the averaging of cardiac diffusion tensor MRI data: the effect of distance function selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DT-MRI) allows a unique insight into the microstructure of highly-directional tissues. The selection of the most proper distance function for the space of diffusion tensors is crucial in enhancing the clinical application of this imaging modality. Both linear and nonlinear metrics have been proposed in the literature over the years. The debate on the most appropriate DT-MRI distance function is still ongoing. In this paper, we presented a framework to compare the Euclidean, affine-invariant Riemannian and log-Euclidean metrics using actual high-resolution DT-MRI rat heart data. We employed temporal averaging at the diffusion tensor level of three consecutive and identically-acquired DT-MRI datasets from each of five rat hearts as a means to rectify the background noise-induced loss of myocyte directional regularity. This procedure is applied here for the first time in the context of tensor distance function selection. When compared with previous studies that used a different concrete application to juxtapose the various DT-MRI distance functions, this work is unique in that it combined the following: (i) metrics were judged by quantitative-rather than qualitative-criteria, (ii) the comparison tools were non-biased, (iii) a longitudinal comparison operation was used on a same-voxel basis. The statistical analyses of the comparison showed that the three DT-MRI distance functions tend to provide equivalent results. Hence, we came to the conclusion that the tensor manifold for cardiac DT-MRI studies is a curved space of almost zero curvature. The signal to noise ratio dependence of the operations was investigated through simulations. Finally, the 'swelling effect' occurrence following Euclidean averaging was found to be too unimportant to be worth consideration.
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 | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".