Magnetic resonance imaging datasets with anatomical fiducials for quality control and registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tools available for reproducible, quantitative assessment of brain correspondence have been limited. We previously validated the anatomical fiducial (AFID) placement protocol for point-based assessment of image registration with millimetric (mm) accuracy. In this data descriptor, we release curated AFID placements for some of the most commonly used structural magnetic resonance imaging datasets and templates. The release of our accurate placements allows for rapid quality control of image registration, teaching neuroanatomy, and clinical applications such as disease diagnosis and surgical targeting. We release placements on individual subjects from four datasets (N = 132 subjects for a total of 15,232 fiducials) and 14 brain templates (4,288 fiducials), totalling more than 300 human rater hours of annotation. We also validate human rater accuracy of released placements to be within 1 - 2 mm (using more than 45,000 Euclidean distances), consistent with prior studies. Our data is compliant with the Brain Imaging Data Structure allowing for facile incorporation into neuroimaging analysis pipelines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".