MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2724603353 · doi:10.1002/cne.24271

Catlas: An magnetic resonance imaging‐based three‐dimensional cortical atlas and tissue probability maps for the domestic cat (<i>Felis catus</i>)

2017· article· en· W2724603353 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Stolzberg, Carmen Wong, Blake E. Butler, Stephen G. Lomber

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersInstitute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and AddictionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsBiologyFelis catusMagnetic resonance imagingFunctional magnetic resonance imagingAtlas (anatomy)NeuroscienceAnatomyPaleontologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain atlases play an important role in effectively communicating results from neuroimaging studies in a standardized coordinate system. Furthermore, brain atlases extend analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data by delineating regions of interest over which to evaluate the extent of functional activation as well as measures of inter-regional connectivity. Here, we introduce a three-dimensional atlas of the cat cerebral cortex based on established cytoarchitectonic and electrophysiological findings. In total, 71 cerebral areas were mapped onto the gray matter (GM) of an averaged T1-weighted structural MRI acquired at 7 T from eight adult domestic cats. In addition, a nonlinear registration procedure was used to generate a common template brain as well as GM, white matter, and cerebral spinal fluid tissue probability maps to facilitate tissue segmentation as part of the standard preprocessing pipeline for MRI data analysis. The atlas and associated files can also be used for planning stereotaxic surgery and for didactic purposes.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations55
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207