MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382678900 · doi:10.7554/elife.88404

Evaluation of surface-based hippocampal registration using ground-truth subfield definitions

2023· article· en· W4382678900 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan DeKraker, Nicola Palomero‐Gallagher, Olga Kedo, Neda Ladbon-Bernasconi, Sascha E.A. Muenzing, Markus Axer, Katrin Amunts, Ali R. Khan, Boris C. Bernhardt, Alan C. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalWestern University
FundersRobarts Research InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeHospital for Sick ChildrenForschungszentrum JülichSickkids Research InstituteMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalCanadian HIV Trials Network, Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchEuropean CommissionCanada Research ChairsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsHippocampusHippocampal formationGround truthComputer scienceGyrificationArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceCurvatureTopology (electrical circuits)Surface (topology)Pattern recognition (psychology)BiologyMathematicsCerebral cortexGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hippocampus is an archicortical structure, consisting of subfields with unique circuits. Understanding its microstructure, as proxied by these subfields, can improve our mechanistic understanding of learning and memory and has clinical potential for several neurological disorders. One prominent issue is how to parcellate, register, or retrieve homologous points between two hippocampi with grossly different morphologies. Here, we present a surface-based registration method that solves this issue in a contrast-agnostic, topology-preserving manner. Specifically, the entire hippocampus is first analytically unfolded, and then samples are registered in 2D unfolded space based on thickness, curvature, and gyrification. We demonstrate this method in seven 3D histology samples and show superior alignment with respect to subfields using this method over more conventional registration approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.480
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.037 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207