MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visual QC Protocol for FreeSurfer Cortical Parcellations from Anatomical MRI

2022· article· en· W4311472414 on OpenAlexaff
Pradeep Reddy Raamana, Athena Theyers, Tharushan Selliah, Piali Bhati, Stephen R. Arnott, Stefanie Hassel, Nuwan D. Nanayakkara, Christopher J.M. Scott, Jacqueline K. Harris, Mojdeh Zamyadi, Raymond W. Lam, Roumen Milev, Daniel J. Müller, Susan Rotzinger, Benício N. Frey, Sidney H. Kennedy, Sandra E. Black, Anthony E. Lang, Mario Masellis, Sean Symons, Robert Bartha, Glenda MacQueen, Stephen C. Strother

Bibliographic record

VenueAperture Neuro · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthQueen's UniversityToronto Western HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)NeuroimagingComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Visual inspectionArtificial intelligenceReproducibilityQuality (philosophy)NeurosciencePsychologyMedicineStatisticsPathologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality control of morphometric neuroimaging data is essential to improve reproducibility. Owing to the complexity of neuroimaging data and subsequently the interpretation of their results, visual inspection by trained raters is the most reliable way to perform quality control. Here, we present a protocol for visual quality control of the anatomical accuracy of FreeSurfer parcellations, based on an easy-to-use open-source tool called VisualQC. We comprehensively evaluate its utility in terms of error detection rate and inter-rater reliability on two large multi-site datasets and discuss site differences in error patterns. This evaluation shows that VisualQC is a practically viable protocol for community adoption.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAperture NeuroSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207