Evaluating the Effect of Intensity Standardisation on Longitudinal Whole Brain Atrophy Quantification in Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrophy quantification is fundamental for understanding brain development and diagnosing and monitoring brain diseases. FSL-SIENA is a well-known fully-automated method that has been widely used in brain magnetic resonance imaging studies. However, intensity variations arising during image acquisition that may compromise evaluation, analysis and even diagnosis. In this work, we study whether intensity standardisation can improve longitudinal atrophy quantification. We considered seven methods comprising z-score, fuzzy c-means, Gaussian mixture model, kernel density, histogram matching, white stripe, and removal of artificial voxel effects by linear regression (RAVEL). We used a total of 330 scans from two publicly-available datasets, ADNI and OASIS. In scan-rescan assessments, that measures robustness to subtle imaging variations, intensity standardisation did not compromise the robustness of FSL-SIENA significantly (p>0.1). In power analysis assessments, that measures the ability to discern between two groups of subjects, three methods led to consistent improvements in both datasets with respect to the original: fuzzy c-means, Gaussian mixture model, and kernel density estimation. Reduction in sample size using these three methods ranged from 17% to 95%. The performance of the other four methods was affected by spatial normalisation, skull stripping errors, presence of periventricular white matter hyperintensities, or tissue proportion variations over time. Our work evinces the relevance of appropriate intensity standardisation in longitudinal cerebral atrophy assessments using FSL-SIENA.
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 | 0.027 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".