qMRI-BIDS: An extension to the brain imaging data structure for quantitative magnetic resonance imaging data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) established community consensus on the organization of data and metadata for several neuroimaging modalities. Traditionally, BIDS had a strong focus on functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets and lacked guidance on how to store multimodal structural MRI datasets. Here, we present and describe the BIDS Extension Proposal 001 (BEP001), which adds a range of quantitative MRI (qMRI) applications to the BIDS. In general, the aim of qMRI is to characterize brain microstructure by quantifying the physical MR parameters of the tissue via computational, biophysical models. By proposing this new standard, we envision standardization of qMRI through multicenter dissemination of interoperable datasets. This way, BIDS can act as a catalyst of convergence between qMRI methods development and application-driven neuroimaging studies that can help develop quantitative biomarkers for neural tissue characterization. In conclusion, this BIDS extension offers a common ground for developers to exchange novel imaging data and tools, reducing the entrance barrier for qMRI in the field of neuroimaging.
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 | 0.035 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.017 |
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".