Tractography reproducibility challenge with empirical data (TraCED): The 2017 ISMRM diffusion study group challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fiber tracking with diffusion-weighted MRI 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. PURPOSE: To assess the variability for an algorithm in group studies reproducibility is of critical context. However, reproducibility does not assess the validity of the brain connections. Phantom studies provide concrete quantitative comparisons of methods relative to absolute ground truths, yet do no capture variabilities because of in vivo physiological factors. The ISMRM 2017 TraCED challenge was created to fulfill the gap. STUDY TYPE: A systematic review of algorithms and tract reproducibility studies. SUBJECTS: Single healthy volunteers. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: with 20, 45, and 64 diffusion gradient directions per shell, respectively. ASSESSMENT: Nine international groups submitted 46 tractography algorithm entries each consisting 16 tracts per scan. The algorithms were assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) and the Dice similarity measure. STATISTICAL TESTS: Containment analysis was performed to assess if the submitted algorithms had containment within tracts of larger volume submissions. This also serves the purpose to detect if spurious submissions had been made. RESULTS: The top five submissions had high ICC and Dice >0.88. Reproducibility was high within the top five submissions when assessed across sessions or across scanners: 0.87-0.97. Containment analysis shows that the top five submissions are contained within larger volume submissions. From the total of 16 tracts as an outcome relatively the number of tracts with high, moderate, and low reproducibility were 8, 4, and 4. DATA CONCLUSION: The different methods clearly result in fundamentally different tract structures at the more conservative specificity choices. Data and challenge infrastructure remain available for continued analysis and provide a platform for comparison. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:234-249.
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 | 0.476 | 0.695 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".