Influence of Processing Pipeline on Cortical Thickness Measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, replicability of neuroscientific findings, specifically those concerning correlates of morphological properties of gray matter (GM), have been subject of major scrutiny. Use of different processing pipelines and differences in their estimates of the macroscale GM may play an important role in this context. To address this issue, here, we investigated the cortical thickness estimates of three widely used pipelines. Based on analyses in two independent large-scale cohorts, we report high levels of within-pipeline reliability of the absolute cortical thickness-estimates and comparable spatial patterns of cortical thickness-estimates across all pipelines. Within each individual, absolute regional thickness differed between pipelines, indicating that in-vivo thickness measurements are only a proxy of actual thickness of the cortex, which shall only be compared within the same software package and thickness estimation technique. However, at group level, cortical thickness-estimates correlated strongly between pipelines, in most brain regions. The smallest between-pipeline correlations were observed in para-limbic areas and insula. These regions also demonstrated the highest interindividual variability and the lowest reliability of cortical thickness-estimates within each pipeline, suggesting that structural variations within these regions should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".