MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D‐Recontruction of CNS Structures Derived From MRI Scans: New Teaching Tools for Neuroanatomy

2008· article· en· W2998596870 on OpenAlexaff
J. M. B. Wilson, Claudia Krebs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroanatomySagittal planeCoronal planeAnatomyCorpus callosumNeuroscience3d modelBasal gangliaCentral nervous systemComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroanatomy requires an understanding of 3D relationships of structures within the brain. This is often a challenge for students who try to visualize these structures from cross‐sectional anatomy or selected pro‐sections. The purpose of this project was to facilitate the 3D understanding of CNS structures through 3D reconstructions from brain MRI scans. 3D reconstructions of various CNS structures were made and posted as edited movies on www.neuroanatomy.ca . 3D reconstructions were based on MRI data sets obtained from a volunteer and from the Visible Human Project (NIH, National Library of Medicine). Structures were manually traced in coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes using AMIRA 4.1 software. The results of this project are available on a website designed for the neuroanatomy laboratory component. The following structures were completed: entire CNS structure, brain vasculature, limbic mamothalamic tracts, optic tracts, eye muscles, subcortical fibers, corpus callosum, thalami and basal ganglia, internal capsule, dentorubrothalamic tract, and spinal tracts. These new additions will allow students to study specific areas and structures of the CNS in 3D. We believe that these tools used in addition with traditional CNS models and specimens, will greatly enhance the spatial understanding of CNS structures for students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207