Tractostorm: Rater reproducibility assessment in tractography dissection of the pyramidal tract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Investigative studies of white matter (WM) brain structures using diffusion MRI (dMRI) tractography frequently require manual WM bundle segmentation, often called “ virtual dissection ”. Human errors and personal decisions make these manual segmentations hard to reproduce, which have not yet been quantified by the dMRI community. The contribution of this study is to provide the first large-scale, international, multi-center variability assessment of the “ virtual dissection ” of the pyramidal tract (PyT). Eleven (11) experts and thirteen (13) non-experts in neuroanatomy and “ virtual dissection ” were asked to perform 30 PyT segmentation and their results were compared using various voxel-wise and streamline-wise measures. Overall the voxel representation is always more reproducible than streamlines (≈70% and ≈35% overlap respectively) and distances between segmentations are also lower for voxel-wise than streamline-wise measures (¾3mm and ¾ûmm respectively). This needs to be seriously considered before using tract-based measures (e.g. bundle volume versus streamline count) for an analysis. We show and argue that future bundle segmentation protocols need to be designed to be more robust to human subjectivity. Coordinated efforts by the diffusion MRI tractography community are needed to quantify and account for reproducibility of WM bundle extraction techniques in this era of open and collaborative science.
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 | 0.155 | 0.292 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".