Validate your white matter tractography algorithms with a reappraised ISMRM 2015 Tractography Challenge scoring system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since 2015, research groups seek to produce the nec-plus-ultra tractography algorithms using the ISMRM 2015 Tractography Challenge as evaluation. In particular, since 2017, machine learning has made its entrance into the tractography world. The ISMRM 2015 Tractography Challenge is the most used phantom during tractography validation, although it contains limitations. We offer, here, a new Tractometer scoring system for this phantom, where segmentation of the bundles is now based on manually-defined regions of interest rather than on bundle recognition. Bundles are now more reliably segmented, offering more stable metrics with higher precision for future users. New code is available online. Scores of the initial 96 submissions to the challenge are updated. Overall, conclusions from the 2015 challenge are confirmed with the new scoring, but individual tractograms scores have changed, and the data is much improved at the bundle- and streamline-level. This work also led to the production of a ground truth tractogram with less noisy streamlines and an example of processed data, all available on the Tractometer website. This enhanced Tractometer scoring system and new data should continue to help researchers develop and evaluate the next generation of tractography techniques.
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 | 0.029 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.021 |
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".