MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2657857444 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2017.7950575

Brain geometry persistent homology marker for Parkinson's disease

2017· article· en· W2657857444 on OpenAlexaff
Amanmeet Garg, Donghuan Lu, Karteek Popuri, Mirza Faisal Beg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopological and Geometric Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersistent homologyTopological data analysisPoint cloudPersistence (discontinuity)Homology (biology)TimelineTopology (electrical circuits)GeometryNeurodegenerationComputer scienceMathematicsDiseaseMedicineArtificial intelligenceBiologyPathologyCombinatoricsGeneticsAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geometry of the human brain changes due to age and neurodegeneration. The brain geometry is expected to undergo a similar change in shape with a normal aging, however such change may differ in patients suffering from neurodegenerative disorders. In the novel framework proposed in this work, we model the brain geometry as a 3D point cloud and study the algebraic topology features of this point cloud. Specifically, we compute the persistence timelines of a simplicial complex in a multiscale simplicial homology of the underlying topology space. Further, persistence landscape summary features are obtained from the timelines and studied for their difference between the two groups. The statistical significance obtained in a permutation testing experiments highlights the ability of the persistence landscape features to differentiate between the PD and healthy control brain geometry.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207