Effect of number of diffusion encoding directions in Neonatal Diffusion Tensor Imaging using Tract-Based Spatial Statistical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) has been used to study the developing brain in early childhood, infants and in utero studies. In infants, number of used diffusion encoding directions has traditionally been smaller in earlier studies down to the minimum of 6 orthogonal directions. While the more recent studies often involve more directions, number of used directions remains an issue when acquisition time is optimized without compromising on data quality and in retrospective studies. Variability in the number of used directions may introduce bias and uncertainties to the DTI scalar estimates that affect cross-sectional and longitudinal study of the brain. We analyzed DTI images of 133 neonates, each data having 54 directions after quality control, to evaluate the effect of number of diffusion weighting directions from 6 to 54 with interval of 6 to the DTI scalars with Tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) analysis. The TBSS analysis was applied to DTI scalar maps, and the mean Region of Interest (ROI) values were extracted using JHU atlas. We found significant bias in ROI mean values when only 6 directions were used (positive in FA, negative in MD, AD, RD), while when using 24 directions and above, the difference to scalar values calculated from 54 direction DTI was negligible. Using DTI measurements from data with at least 24 directions may be used in comparisons with DTI measurements from data with higher numbers of directions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".