A framework for evaluating correspondence between brain images using anatomical fiducials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate spatial correspondence between template and subject images is a crucial step in neuroimaging studies and clinical applications like stereotactic neurosurgery. In the absence of a robust quantitative approach, we sought to propose and validate a set of point landmarks, anatomical fiducials (AFIDs), that could be quickly, accurately, and reliably placed on magnetic resonance images of the human brain. Using several publicly available brain templates and individual participant datasets, novice users could be trained to place a set of 32 AFIDs with millimetric accuracy. Furthermore, the utility of the AFIDs protocol is demonstrated for evaluating subject-to-template and template-to-template registration. Specifically, we found that commonly used voxel overlap metrics were relatively insensitive to focal misregistrations compared to AFID point-based measures. Our entire protocol and study framework leverages open resources and tools, and has been developed with full transparency in mind so that others may freely use, adopt, and modify. This protocol holds value for a broad number of applications including alignment of brain images and teaching neuroanatomy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".