Deep-diffeomorphic networks for conditional brain templates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deformable brain templates are an important tool in many neuroimaging analyses. Conditional templates (e.g., age-specific templates) have advantages over single population templates by enabling improved registration accuracy and capturing common processes in brain development and degeneration. Conventional methods require large, evenly-spread cohorts to develop conditional templates, limiting their ability to create templates that could reflect richer combinations of clinical and demographic variables. More recent deep-learning methods, which can infer relationships in very high dimensional spaces, open up the possibility of producing conditional templates that are jointly optimised for these richer sets of conditioning parameters. We have built on recent deep-learning template generation approaches using a diffeomorphic (topology-preserving) framework to create a purely geometric method of conditional template construction that learns diffeomorphisms between: (i) a global or group template and conditional templates, and (ii) conditional templates and individual brain scans. We evaluated our method, as well as other recent deep-learning approaches, on a dataset of cognitively normal ( CN ) participants from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), using age as the conditioning parameter of interest. We assessed the effectiveness of these networks at capturing age-dependent anatomical differences. Our results demonstrate that while the assessed deep-learning methods have a number of strengths, they require further refinement to capture morphological changes in ageing brains with an acceptable degree of accuracy. The volumetric output of our method, and other recent deep-learning approaches, across four brain structures (grey matter, white matter, the lateral ventricles and the hippocampus), was measured and showed that although each of the methods captured some changes well, each method was unable to accurately track changes in all of the volumes. However, as our method is purely geometric it was able to produce T1-weighted conditional templates with high spatial fidelity and with consistent topology as age varies, making these conditional templates advantageous for spatial registrations. The use of diffeomorphisms in these deep-learning methods represents an important strength of these approaches, as they can produce conditional templates that can be explicitly linked, geometrically, across age as well as to fixed, unconditional templates or brain atlases. The use of deep-learning in conditional template generation provides a framework for creating templates for more complex sets of conditioning parameters, such as pathologies and demographic variables, in order to facilitate a broader application of conditional brain templates in neuroimaging studies. This can aid researchers and clinicians in their understanding of how brain structure changes over time, and under various interventions, with the ultimate goal of improving the calibration of treatments and interventions in personalised medicine. The code to implement our conditional brain template network is available at: github.com/lwhitbread/deep-diff .
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".