MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749107595 · doi:10.3389/fninf.2017.00054

Fiberweb: Diffusion Visualization and Processing in the Browser

2017· article· en· W2749107595 on OpenAlexafffund
Louis-Philippe Ledoux, Félix C. Morency, Martin Cousineau, Jean‐Christophe Houde, Kevin Whittingstall, Maxime Descoteaux

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroinformatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVisualizationComputer scienceDiffusionComputer graphics (images)World Wide WebData miningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data visualization is one of the most important tool to explore the brain as we know it. In this work, we introduce a novel browser-based solution for medical imaging data visualization and interaction with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) and tractography data: Fiberweb. It uses a recent technology, WebGL, that has yet to be fully explored for medical imaging purposes. There are currently very few software tools that allow medical imaging data visualization in the browser, and none of these tools support efficient data interaction and processing, such as streamlines selection and real-time deterministic and probabilistic tractography (RTT). With Fiberweb allowing these types of interaction, it is no longer the case. We show results of the visualization of medical imaging data, and demonstrate that our new RTT probabilistic algorithm can compare to a state of the art offline algorithm. Overall, Fiberweb pushes the boundary of interaction combined with scientific visualization, which opens great perspectives for quality control and neurosurgical navigation on browser-based mobile and static devices.

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 score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroinformaticsSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207