Quantitative examination of a novel clustering method using magnetic resonance diffusion tensor tractography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MR diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) can measure and visualize organization of white matter fibre tracts in vivo. DTI is a relatively new imaging technique, and new tools developed for quantifying fibre tracts require evaluation. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of a novel clustering approach with a multiple region of interest (MROI) approach in both healthy and disease (schizophrenia) populations. DTI images were acquired in 20 participants (n=10 patients with schizophrenia: 56 ± 15 years; n=10 controls: 51 ± 20 years) (1.5 Tesla GE system) with diffusion gradients applied in 23 non-collinear directions, repeated three times. Whole brain seeding and creation of fibre tracts were then performed. Interrater reliability of the clustering approach, and the MROI approach, were each evaluated and the methods compared. There was high spatial (voxel-based) agreement within and between the clustering and MROI methods. Fractional anisotropy, trace, and radial and axial diffusivity values showed high intraclass correlation (p<0.001 for all tracts) for each approach. Differences in scalar indices of diffusion between the clustering and MROI approach were minimal. The excellent interrater reliability of the clustering method and high agreement with the MROI method, quantitatively and spatially, indicates that the clustering method can be used with confidence. The clustering method avoids biases of ROI drawing and placement, and, not limited by a priori predictions, may be a more robust and efficient way to identify and measure white matter tracts of interest.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".