Modelling white matter microstructure using diffusion OGSE MRI: Model and analysis choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alterations in white matter (WM) microstructure of the central nervous system have been shown to be pathophysiological presentations of various neurodegenerative disorders . Current methods for measuring such WM features require ex vivo tissue samples analyzed using electron microscopy . Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) diffusion-weighted pulse sequences provide a non-invasive tool for estimating such microstructural features in vivo. The current project investigated the use of two methods of analysis, including the ROI-based (Region of Interest, RBA) and voxel-based analysis (VBA), as well as four mathematical models of WM microstructure, including the ActiveAx Frequency-Independent Extra-Axonal Diffusion (AAI), ActiveAx Frequency-Dependent Extra-Axonal Diffusion (AAD), AxCaliber Frequency-Independent Extra-Axonal Diffusion (ACI), and AxCaliber Frequency-Dependent Extra-Axonal Diffusion (ACD) models. Two mice samples imaged at 7 T and 15.2 T were analyzed. Both the AAI and AAD models provide a single value for each of the fit parameters, including mean effective axon diameter AxD ¯ , packing fraction f in , intra-cellular and D in and extra-cellular D ex diffusion coefficients , as well as the frequency dependence of D ex , β ex for the AAD model. The ACI and ACD models provide this, in addition to a distribution of axon diameters for a chosen ROI. VBA extends this, providing a parameter value for each voxel within the selected ROI, at the cost of increased computational load and analysis time. Overall, RBA-ACD and VBA-AAD were found to be optimal for parameter fitting to physically relevant values in a reasonable time frame. A full comparison of each combination of RBA and VBA with AAI, AAD, ACI, and ACD is provided to give the reader sufficient information to make an informed decision of which model is best for their own experiments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".