Construction of Indian human brain atlas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: A brain magnetic resonanace imaging (MRI) atlas plays an important role in many neuroimage analysis tasks as it provides an atlas with a standard coordinate system which is needed for spatial normalization of a brain MRI. Ideally, this atlas should be as near to the average brain of the population being studied as possible. AIMS: The aim of this study is to construct and validate the Indian brain MRI atlas of young Indian population and the corresponding structure probability maps. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a population-specific atlas generation and validation process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 young healthy adults (M/F = 50/50), aged 21-30 years, were recruited for the study. Three different 1.5-T scanners were used for image acquisition. The atlas and structure maps were created using nonrigid groupwise registration and label-transfer techniques. COMPARISON AND VALIDATION: The generated atlas was compared against other atlases to study the population-specific trends. RESULTS: The atlas-based comparison indicated a signifi cant difference between the global size of Indian and Caucasian brains. This difference was noteworthy for all three global measures, namely, length, width, and height. Such a comparison with the Chinese and Korean brain templates indicate all 3 to be comparable in length but signifi cantly different (smaller) in terms of height and width. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm that there is significant difference in brain morphology between Indian, Chinese, and Caucasian populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".