Magnetic resonance imaging datasets with anatomical fiducials for quality control and registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tools available for reproducible, quantitative assessment of brain correspondence have been limited. We previously validated the anatomical fiducial (AFID) placement protocol for point-based assessment of image registration with millimetric (mm) accuracy. In this data descriptor, we release curated AFID placements for some of the most commonly used structural magnetic resonance imaging templates and datasets. The release of our accurate placements allows for rapid quality control of image registration, teaching neuroanatomy, and clinical applications such as disease diagnosis and surgical targeting. We release placements on individual subjects from four datasets (n = 132 subjects for a total of 15,232 fiducials) and more than 10 brain templates (4,288 fiducials), compiling over 300 human rater hours of annotation. We also validate human rater accuracy of released placements to be within 1-2 mm (using a total of 50,336 Euclidean distances), consistent with prior studies. Our data is compliant with the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) allowing for facile incorporation into modern neuroimaging analysis pipelines. Data is accessible on GitHub ( https://github.com/afids/afids-data ).
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 | 0.012 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.028 |
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".