MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Freesurfer cortical normative data for adults using Desikan-Killiany-Tourville and ex vivo protocols

2017· article· en· W2610905421 on OpenAlexafffund
Olivier Potvin, Louis Dieumegarde, Simon Duchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcDonnell Center for Systems NeuroscienceNational Institute of Mental HealthNorsk SykepleierforbundNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's ResearchJohn Douglas French Alzheimer's FoundationFonds de recherche du QuébecEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNational Multiple Sclerosis SocietyDana FoundationChild Mind InstituteBurroughs Wellcome FundCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsNormativePsychologyEx vivoNeuroscienceIn vivoBiologyPhilosophyEpistemologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently built normative data for FreeSurfer morphometric estimates of cortical regions using its default atlas parcellation (Desikan-Killiany or DK) according to individual and scanner characteristics. We aimed to produced similar normative values for Desikan-Killianny-Tourville (DKT) and ex vivo-based labeling protocols, as well as examine the differences between these three atlases. Surfaces, thicknesses, and volumes of cortical regions were produced using cross-sectional magnetic resonance scans from the same 2713 healthy individuals aged 18–94 years as used in the reported DK norms. Models predicting regional cortical estimates of each hemisphere were produced using age, sex, estimated intracranial volume (eTIV), scanner manufacturer and magnetic field strength (MFS) as predictors. The DKT and DK models generally included the same predictors and produced similar R 2 . Comparison between DK, DKT, ex vivo atlases normative cortical measures showed that the three protocols generally produced similar normative values.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207