Assessing the Reliability of Template-Based Clustering for Tractography in Healthy Human Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tractography is a non-invasive technique to investigate the brain's structural pathways (also referred to as tracts) that connect different brain regions. A commonly used approach for identifying tracts is with template-based clustering, where unsupervised clustering is first performed on a template in order to label corresponding tracts in unseen data. However, the reliability of this approach has not been extensively studied. Here, an investigation into template-based clustering reliability was performed, assessing the output from two datasets: Human Connectome Project (HCP) and MyConnectome project. The effect of intersubject variability on template-based clustering reliability was investigated, as well as the reliability of both deep and superficial white matter tracts. Identified tracts were evaluated by assessing Euclidean distances from a dataset-specific tract average centroid, the volumetric overlap across corresponding tracts, and along-tract agreement of quantitative values. Further, two template-based techniques were employed to evaluate the reliability of different clustering approaches. Reliability assessment can increase the confidence of a tract identifying technique in future applications to study pathways of interest. The two different template-based approaches exhibited similar reliability for identifying both deep white matter tracts and the superficial white matter.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".