Bloody noise: The impact of blood‐flow artifacts on registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood-flow artifacts present a serious challenge for most, if not all, volumetric analytical approaches. We utilize T1-weighted data with prominent blood-flow artifacts from the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) multisite agglomerative dataset to assess the impact that such blood-flow artifacts have on registration of T1-weighted data to a template. We use a heuristic approach to identify the blood-flow artifacts in these data; we use the resulting blood masks to turn the underlying voxels to the intensity of the cerebro-spinal fluid, thus mimicking the effect of blood suppression. We then register both the original data and the deblooded data to a common T1-weighted template, and compare the quality of those registrations to the template in terms of similarity to the template. The registrations to the template based on the deblooded data yield significantly higher similarity values compared with those based on the original data. Additionally, we measure the nonlinear deformations needed to transform the data from the position achieved by registering the original data to the template to the position achieved by registering the deblooded data to the template. The results indicate that blood-flow artifacts may seriously impact data processing that depends on registration to a template, that is, most all data processing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".