Benchmarking Geometric Deep Learning for Cortical Segmentation and Neurodevelopmental Phenotype Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The emerging field of geometric deep learning extends the application of convolutional neural networks to irregular domains such as graphs, meshes and surfaces. Several recent studies have explored the potential for using these techniques to analyse and segment the cortical surface. However, there has been no comprehensive comparison of these approaches to one another, nor to existing Euclidean methods, to date. This paper benchmarks a collection of geometric and traditional deep learning models on phenotype prediction and segmentation of sphericalised neonatal cortical surface data, from the publicly available Developing Human Connectome Project (dHCP). Tasks include prediction of postmenstrual age at scan, gestational age at birth and segmentation of the cortical surface into anatomical regions defined by the M-CRIB-S atlas. Performance was assessed not only in terms of model precision, but also in terms of network dependence on image registration, and model interpretation via occlusion. Networks were trained both on sphericalised and anatomical cortical meshes. Findings suggest that the utility of geometric deep learning over traditional deep learning is highly task-specific, which has implications for the design of future deep learning models on the cortical surface. The code, and instructions for data access, are available from https://github.com/Abdulah-Fawaz/Benchmarking-Surface-DL .
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".