Effect of number of diffusion‐encoding directions in diffusion metrics of 5‐year‐olds using tract‐based spatial statistical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methodological aspects and effects of different imaging parameters on DTI (diffusion tensor imaging) results and their reproducibility have been recently studied comprehensively in adult populations. Although MR imaging of children's brains has become common, less interest has been focussed on researching whether adult-based optimised parameters and pre-processing protocols can be reliably applied to paediatric populations. Furthermore, DTI scalar values of preschool aged children are rarely reported. We gathered a DTI dataset from 5-year-old children (N = 49) to study the effect of the number of diffusion-encoding directions on the reliability of resultant scalar values with TBSS (tract-based spatial statistics) method. Additionally, the potential effect of within-scan head motion on DTI scalars was evaluated. Reducing the number of diffusion-encoding directions deteriorated both the accuracy and the precision of all DTI scalar values. To obtain reliable scalar values, a minimum of 18 directions for TBSS was required. For TBSS fractional anisotropy values, the intraclass correlation coefficient with two-way random-effects model (ICC[2,1]) for the subsets of 6 to 66 directions ranged between 0.136 [95%CI 0.0767;0.227] and 0.639 [0.542;0.740], whereas the corresponding values for subsets of 18 to 66 directions were 0.868 [0.815;0.913] and 0.995 [0.993;0.997]. Following the exclusion of motion-corrupted volumes, minor residual motion did not associate with the scalar values. A minimum of 18 diffusion directions is recommended to result in reliable DTI scalar results with TBSS. We suggest gathering extra directions in paediatric DTI to enable exclusion of volumes with motion artefacts and simultaneously preserve the overall data quality.
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 | 0.016 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".