Development and evaluation of a high performance <scp>T1</scp>‐weighted brain template for use in studies on older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Τhe accuracy of template-based neuroimaging investigations depends on the template's image quality and representativeness of the individuals under study. Yet a thorough, quantitative investigation of how available standardized and study-specific T1-weighted templates perform in studies on older adults has not been conducted. The purpose of this work was to construct a high-quality standardized T1-weighted template specifically designed for the older adult brain, and systematically compare the new template to several other standardized and study-specific templates in terms of image quality, performance in spatial normalization of older adult data and detection of small inter-group morphometric differences, and representativeness of the older adult brain. The new template was constructed with state-of-the-art spatial normalization of high-quality data from 222 older adults. It was shown that the new template (a) exhibited high image sharpness, (b) provided higher inter-subject spatial normalization accuracy and (c) allowed detection of smaller inter-group morphometric differences compared to other standardized templates, (d) had similar performance to that of study-specific templates constructed with the same methodology, and (e) was highly representative of the older adult brain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".