MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950396589 · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2017.12.002

Diffusion MRI of white matter microstructure development in childhood and adolescence: Methods, challenges and progress

2017· review· en· W2950396589 on OpenAlexaff
Christian K. Tamnes, David R. Roalf, Anne‐Lise Goddings, Catherine Lebel

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Cognitive Neuroscience · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsDiffusion MRINeuroimagingPsychologyWhite matterBrain developmentPopularityData scienceNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMagnetic resonance imagingComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) continues to grow in popularity as a useful neuroimaging method to study brain development, and longitudinal studies that track the same individuals over time are emerging. Over the last decade, seminal work using dMRI has provided new insights into the development of brain white matter (WM) microstructure, connections and networks throughout childhood and adolescence. This review provides an introduction to dMRI, both diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and other dMRI models, as well as common acquisition and analysis approaches. We highlight the difficulties associated with ascribing these imaging measurements and their changes over time to specific underlying cellular and molecular events. We also discuss selected methodological challenges that are of particular relevance for studies of development, including critical choices related to image acquisition, image analysis, quality control assessment, and the within-subject and longitudinal reliability of dMRI measurements. Next, we review the exciting progress in the characterization and understanding of brain development that has resulted from dMRI studies in childhood and adolescence, including brief overviews and discussions of studies focusing on sex and individual differences. Finally, we outline future directions that will be beneficial to the field.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations171
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207