Tractography Reproducibility Challenge with Empirical Data (TraCED): The 2017 ISMRM Diffusion Study Group Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Fiber tracking with diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging has become an essential tool for estimating in vivo brain white matter architecture. Fiber tracking results are sensitive to the choice of processing method and tracking criteria. Phantom studies provide concrete quantitative comparisons of methods relative to absolute ground truths, yet do not capture variabilities because of in vivo physiological factors. Methods: To date, a large-scale reproducibility analysis has not been performed for the assessment of the newest generation of tractography algorithms with in vivo data. Reproducibility does not assess the validity of a brain connection however it is still of critical importance because it describes the variability for an algorithm in group studies. The ISMRM 2017 TraCED challenge was created to fulfill the gap. The TraCED dataset consists of a single healthy volunteer scanned on two different scanners of the same manufacturer. The multi-shell acquisition included b-values of 1000, 2000 and 3000 s/mm2 with 20, 45 and 64 diffusion gradient directions per shell, respectively. Results: Nine international groups submitted 46 tractography algorithm entries. The top five submissions had high ICC > 0.88. Reproducibility is high within these top 5 submissions when assessed across sessions or across scanners. However, it can be directly attributed to containment of smaller volume tracts in larger volume tracts. This holds true for the top five submissions where they are contained in a specific order. While most algorithms are contained in an ordering there are some outliers. Conclusion: The different methods clearly result in fundamentally different tract structures at the more conservative specificity choices (i.e., volumetrically smaller tractograms). The data and challenge infrastructure remain available for continued analysis and provide a platform for comparison.
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 | 0.166 | 0.400 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".