Diffusion MRI fiber tractography of the brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of fiber tractography to delineate non-invasively the white matter fiber pathways of the brain raises possibilities for clinical applications and offers enormous potential for neuroscience. In the last decade, fiber tracking has become the method of choice to investigate quantitative MRI parameters in specific bundles of white matter. For neurosurgeons, it is quickly becoming an invaluable tool for the planning of surgery, allowing for visualization and localization of important white matter pathways before and even during surgery. Fiber tracking has also claimed a central role in the field of "connectomics," a technique that builds and studies comprehensive maps of the complex network of connections within the brain, and to which significant resources have been allocated worldwide. Despite its unique abilities and exciting applications, fiber tracking is not without controversy, in particular when it comes to its interpretation. As neuroscientists are eager to study the brain's connectivity, the quantification of tractography-derived "connection strengths" between distant brain regions is becoming increasingly popular. However, this practice is often frowned upon by fiber-tracking experts. In light of this controversy, this paper provides an overview of the key concepts of tractography, the technical considerations at play, and the different types of tractography algorithm, as well as the common misconceptions and mistakes that surround them. We also highlight the ongoing challenges related to fiber tracking. While recent methodological developments have vastly increased the biological accuracy of fiber tractograms, one should be aware that, even with state-of-the-art techniques, many issues that severely bias the resulting structural "connectomes" remain unresolved.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".