User‐independent diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines in a rat model presenting ventriculomegalia: A comparison study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated analysis of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data is an appealing way to process large datasets in an unbiased manner. However, automation can sometimes be linked to a lack of interpretability. Two whole-brain, automated and voxelwise methods exist: voxel-based analysis (VBA) and tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS). In VBA, the amount of smoothing has been shown to influence the results. TBSS is free of this step, but a projection procedure is introduced to correct for residual misalignments. This projection assigns the local highest fractional anisotropy (FA) value to the mean FA skeleton, which represents white matter tract centers. For both methods, the normalization procedure has a major impact. These issues are well documented in humans but, to our knowledge, not in rodents. In this study, we assessed the quality of three different registration algorithms (ANTs SyN, DTI-TK and FNIRT) using study-specific templates and their impact on automated analysis methods (VBA and TBSS) in a rat pup model of diffuse white matter injury presenting large unilateral deformations. VBA and TBSS results were stable and anatomically coherent across the three pipelines. For VBA, in regions around the large deformations, interpretability was limited because of the increased partial volume effect. With TBSS, two of the three pipelines found a significant decrease in axial diffusivity (AD) at the known injury site. These results demonstrate that automated voxelwise analyses can be used in an animal model with large deformations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".