Neuroimage signature from salient keypoints is highly specific to individuals and shared by close relatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroimaging studies typically adopt a common feature space for all data, which may obscure aspects of neuroanatomy only observable in subsets of a population, e.g. cortical folding patterns unique to individuals or shared by close relatives. Here, we propose to model individual variability using a distinctive keypoint signature: a set of unique, localized patterns, detected automatically in each image by a generic saliency operator. The similarity of an image pair is then quantified by the proportion of keypoints they share using a novel Jaccard-like measure of set overlap. Experiments demonstrate the keypoint method to be highly efficient and accurate, using a set of 7536 T1-weighted MRIs pooled from four public neuroimaging repositories, including twins, non-twin siblings, and 3334 unique subjects. All same-subject image pairs are identified by a similarity threshold despite confounds including aging and neurodegenerative disease progression. Outliers reveal previously unknown data labeling inconsistencies, demonstrating the usefulness of the keypoint signature as a computational tool for curating large neuroimage datasets.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".