MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382813701 · doi:10.7554/elife.88404.1.sa2

Reviewer #1 (Public Review): Evaluation of surface-based hippocampal registration using ground-truth subfield definitions

2023· peer-review· en· W4382813701 on OpenAlexfundno aff
DeKraker Jordan, Palomero-Gallagher Nicola, Olga Kedo, Ladbon-Bernasconi Neda, Muenzing Sascha, Axer Markus, Katrin Amunts, Khan Ali R., Bernhardt Boris, Evans Alan C.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionForschungszentrum JülichCanada Research ChairsMcGill UniversityRobarts Research InstituteHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsComputer scienceGround truthHippocampusHippocampal formationArtificial intelligenceImage registrationGyrificationCode (set theory)SoftwareSurface (topology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionImage (mathematics)Topology (electrical circuits)NeuroscienceMathematicsBiologyProgramming languageCerebral cortex

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.The methodological advancements described here are made easily accessible in the latest version of open source software HippUnfold. Code used in the development and testing of these methods, as well as preprocessed images, manual segmentations, and results, are openly available.

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)0.106
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.545
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1060.545
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0130.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.031

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCell Image Analysis Techniques→French-language works237,207→