An atlas of white matter anatomy, its variability, and reproducibility based on constrained spherical deconvolution of diffusion MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual dissection of white matter (WM) using diffusion MRI tractography is confounded by its poor reproducibility. Despite the increased adoption of advanced reconstruction models, early region-of-interest driven protocols based on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) remain the dominant reference for virtual dissection protocols. Here we bridge this gap by providing a comprehensive description of typical WM anatomy reconstructed using a reproducible automated subject-specific parcellation-based approach based on probabilistic constrained-spherical deconvolution (CSD) tractography. We complement this with a WM template in MNI space comprising 68 bundles, including all associated anatomical tract selection labels and associated automated workflows. Additionally, we demonstrate bundle inter- and intra-subject variability using 40 (20 test-retest) datasets from the human connectome project (HCP) and 5 sessions with varying b-values and number of b-shells from the single-subject Multiple Acquisitions for Standardization of Structural Imaging Validation and Evaluation (MASSIVE) dataset. The most reliably reconstructed bundles were the whole pyramidal tracts, primary corticospinal tracts, whole superior longitudinal fasciculi, frontal, parietal and occipital segments of the corpus callosum and middle cerebellar peduncles. More variability was found in less dense bundles, e.g., the fornix, dentato-rubro-thalamic tract (DRTT), and premotor pyramidal tract. Using the DRTT as an example, we show that this variability can be reduced by using a higher number of seeding attempts. Overall inter-session similarity was high for HCP test-retest data (median weighted-dice = 0.963, stdev = 0.201 and IQR = 0.099). Compared to the HCP-template bundles there was a high level of agreement for the HCP test-retest data (median weighted-dice = 0.747, stdev = 0.220 and IQR = 0.277) and for the MASSIVE data (median weighted-dice = 0.767, stdev = 0.255 and IQR = 0.338). In summary, this WM atlas provides an overview of the capabilities and limitations of automated subject-specific probabilistic CSD tractography for mapping white matter fasciculi in healthy adults. It will be most useful in applications requiring a reproducible parcellation-based dissection protocol, and as an educational resource for applied neuroimaging and clinical professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".