Untapped Neuroimaging Tools for Neuro-Oncology: Connectomics and Spatial Transcriptomics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuro-oncology research is broad and includes several branches, one of which is neuroimaging. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is instrumental for the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of patients with brain tumors. Most commonly, structural and perfusion MRI sequences are acquired to characterize tumors and understand their behaviors. Thanks to technological advances, structural brain MRI can now be transformed into a so-called average brain accounting for individual morphological differences, which enables retrospective group analysis. These normative analyses are uncommonly used in neuro-oncology research. Once the data have been normalized, voxel-wise analyses and spatial mapping can be performed. Additionally, investigations of underlying connectomics can be performed using functional and structural templates. Additionally, a recently available template of spatial transcriptomics has enabled the assessment of associated gene expression. The few published normative analyses have shown relationships between tumor characteristics and spatial localization, as well as insights into the circuitry associated with epileptogenic tumors and depression after cingulate tumor resection. The wide breadth of possibilities with normative analyses remain largely unexplored, specifically in terms of connectomics and imaging transcriptomics. We provide a framework for performing normative analyses in oncology while also highlighting their limitations. Normative analyses are an opportunity to address neuro-oncology questions from a different perspective.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it