Effect of geometric distortion correction on thickness and volume measurements of cortical parcellations in 3D T1w gradient echo sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Automated brain volumetric analysis based on high-resolution T1-weighted MRI datasets is a frequently used tool in neuroimaging for early detection, diagnosis, and monitoring of various neurological diseases. However, image distortions can corrupt and bias the analysis. The aim of this study was to explore the variability of brain volumetric analysis due to gradient distortions and to investigate the effect of distortion correction methods implemented on commercial scanners. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 36 healthy volunteers underwent brain imaging using a 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner, including a high-resolution 3D T1-weighted sequence. For all participants, each T1-weighted image was reconstructed directly on the vendor workstation with (DC) and without (nDC) distortion correction. For each participant's set of DC and nDC images, FreeSurfer was used for the determination of regional cortical thickness and volume. RESULTS: Overall, significant differences were found in 12 cortical ROIs comparing the volumes of the DC and nDC data and in 19 cortical ROIs comparing the thickness of the DC and nDC data. The most pronounced differences for cortical thickness were found in the precentral gyrus, the lateral occipital and postcentral ROI (2.69, -2.91% and -2.79%, respectively) while cortical volumes differed most prominently in the paracentral, the pericalcarine and lateral occipital ROI (5.52%, -5.40% and -5.11%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Correcting for gradient non-linearities can have significant influence on volumetric analysis of cortical thickness and volume. Since the distortion correction is an automatic feature of the MR scanner, it should be stated by each study that applies volumetric analysis which images were used.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".