Cortical Surfaces Integration with Tractography for Structural Connectivity Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mapping diffusion MRI tractography streamlines to the cortical surface facilitates the integration of white matter features onto gray matter, especially for connectivity analysis. Method: In this work, we present methods that combine cortical surface meshes with tractography reconstruction to improve endpoint precision and coverage. This cortical mapping also enables the study of structural measures from tractography along the cortex and subcortical structures. In addition to structural connectivity analysis, novel adaptive and dynamic surface seeding methods are proposed. These improvements are made by incorporating cortical maps such as endpoint density. Results: The proposed dynamic surface seeding increases the cortical coverage and reduces endpoint location biases. Our results suggest that the use of cortical and subcortical meshes together with a proper seeding strategy can reduce the variability in structural connectivity analysis. Conclusion: The proposed adaptive and dynamic seeding utilize cortical maps to better distribute tractography interconnections, thus increasing cortical coverage and reducing endpoint bias. This also facilitates the analysis of white matter & diffusion MRI features along the cortex, combined with cortical measures or functional activation. This research presents an overview of surface mapping methods for tractography to reduce structural connectivity variability. The proposed adaptive and dynamic seeding utilize cortical maps to better distribute tractography interconnections, thus increasing cortical coverage and reducing end-point bias. This also facilitates the analysis of white matter and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging features along the cortex, combined with cortical measures or functional activation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".