Mapping the impact of approximate gradient nonlinearity fields correction on tractography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonlinear gradients impact diffusion weighted MRI by introducing spatial variation in estimated diffusion tensors. Recent studies have shown that increasing signal-to-noise ratios and the use of ultra-strong gradients may lead to clinically significant impacts on analyses due to these nonlinear gradients in microstructural measures. These effects can potentially bias tractography results and cause misinterpretation of data. Herein, we characterize the impact of an "approximate" gradient nonlinearity correction technique in tractography using empirically derived gradient nonlinear fields. This technique scales the diffusion signal by the change in magnitude due to the gradient nonlinearities, without concomitant correction of gradient direction errors. The impact of this correction on tractography is assessed through white matter bundle segmentation and connectomics via bundle-wise volume, fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, radial diffusivity, axial diffusivity, primary eigenvector, and length; as well as the modularity, global efficiency, and characteristic path length connectomics graph measures. We investigate the differences between (1) these measures directly and (2) the within session variability of these measures before and after approximate correction in 61 subjects from the MASiVar pediatric reproducibility dataset. We find approximate correction results is little to no differences on the population level, but large differences on the subject-specific level for both the measures directly and their within session variability. Thus, this study suggests though approximate correction of gradient nonlinearities may not change tractography findings on the population level, subject-specific interpretations may exhibit large fluctuations. A limitation is the lack of comparison with the empirical voxel-wise gradient table correction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".