MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006404851 · doi:10.1038/s41597-020-0379-9

High-resolution T2-FLAIR and non-contrast CT brain atlas of the elderly

2020· article· en· W3006404851 on OpenAlexafffund
Deepthi Rajashekar, Matthias Wilms, M. Ethan MacDonald, Jan Ehrhardt, Pauline Mouchès, Richard Frayne, Michael D. Hill, Nils D. Forkert

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Open Neuroscience PlatformUniversity of CalgaryCanada Research ChairsHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsFluid-attenuated inversion recoverySpatial normalizationNeuroimagingContrast (vision)Computer scienceModalitiesNormalization (sociology)Artificial intelligenceModality (human–computer interaction)VoxelBrain atlasBrain mappingPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineNeuroscienceMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Normative brain atlases are a standard tool for neuroscience research and are, for example, used for spatial normalization of image datasets prior to voxel-based analyses of brain morphology and function. Although many different atlases are publicly available, they are usually biased with respect to an imaging modality and the age distribution. Both effects are well known to negatively impact the accuracy and reliability of the spatial normalization process using non-linear image registration methods. An important and very active neuroscience area that lacks appropriate atlases is lesion-related research in elderly populations (e.g. stroke, multiple sclerosis) for which FLAIR MRI and non-contrast CT are often the clinical imaging modalities of choice. To overcome the lack of atlases for these tasks and modalities, this paper presents high-resolution, age-specific FLAIR and non-contrast CT atlases of the elderly generated using clinical images.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207