MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939399262 · doi:10.1101/608349

Reducing false positives in tractography with microstructural and anatomical priors

2019· preprint· en· W2939399262 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
KeywordsFalse positive paradoxTractographyPrior probabilityRegularization (linguistics)Synthetic dataPattern recognition (psychology)Convex optimizationMagnetic resonance imagingFalse positives and false negatives

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tractography is a family of algorithms that use diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging data to reconstruct the white matter pathways of the brain. Although it has been proven to be particularly effective for studying non-invasively the neuronal architecture of the brain, recent studies have highlighted that the large incidence of false positive connections retrieved by these techniques can significantly bias any connectivity analysis. Some solutions have been proposed to overcome this issue and the ones relying on convex optimization framework showed a significant improvement. Here we propose an evolution of the Convex Optimization Modeling for Microstructure Informed Tractography (COMMIT) framework, that combines basic prior knowledge about brain anatomy with group-sparsity regularization into the optimization problem. We show that the new formulation dramatically reduces the incidence of false positives in synthetic DW-MRI data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207