MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225657792 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac132

Morphological patterns and spatial probability maps of the superior parietal sulcus in the human brain

2022· article· en· W4225657792 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kristina Drudik, Veronika Zlatkina, Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSulcusSuperior parietal lobuleCentral sulcusParietal lobeAnatomyMagnetic resonance imagingHuman brainBiologyIntraparietal sulcusBrain mappingSuperior temporal sulcusNeurosciencePosterior parietal cortexFunctional magnetic resonance imagingMedicineMotor cortexRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The superior parietal sulcus (SPS) is the defining sulcus within the superior parietal lobule (SPL). The morphological variability of the SPS was examined in individual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the human brain that were registered to the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) standard stereotaxic space. Two primary morphological patterns were consistently identified across hemispheres: (i) the SPS was identified as a single sulcus, separating the anterior from the posterior part of the SPL and (ii) the SPS was found as a complex of multiple sulcal segments. These morphological patterns were subdivided based on whether the SPS or SPS complex remained distinct or merged with surrounding parietal sulci. The morphological variability and spatial extent of the SPS were quantified using volumetric and surface spatial probabilistic mapping. The current investigation established consistent morphological patterns in a common anatomical space, the MNI stereotaxic space, to facilitate structural and functional analyses within the SPL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207