Apparent propagator anisotropy from single‐shell diffusion MRI acquisitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The apparent propagator anisotropy (APA) is a new diffusion MRI metric that, while drawing on the benefits of the ensemble averaged propagator anisotropy (PA) compared to the fractional anisotropy (FA), can be estimated from single-shell data. THEORY AND METHODS: Computation of the full PA requires acquisition of large datasets with many diffusion directions and different b-values, and results in extremely long processing times. This has hindered adoption of the PA by the community, despite evidence that it provides meaningful information beyond the FA. Calculation of the complete propagator can be avoided under the hypothesis that a similar sensitivity/specificity may be achieved from apparent measurements at a given shell. Assuming that diffusion anisotropy (DiA) is nondependent on the b-value, a closed-form expression using information from one single shell (ie, b-value) is reported. RESULTS: Publicly available databases with healthy and diseased subjects are used to compare the APA against other anisotropy measures. The structural information provided by the APA correlates with that provided by the PA for healthy subjects, while it also reveals statistically relevant differences in white matter regions for two pathologies, with a higher reliability than the FA. Additionally, APA has a computational complexity similar to the FA, with processing-times several orders of magnitude below the PA. CONCLUSIONS: The APA can extract more relevant white matter information than the FA, without any additional demands on data acquisition. This makes APA an attractive option for adoption into existing diffusion MRI analysis pipelines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".