MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automated registration-based skull stripping procedure for feline neuroimaging

2024· article· en· W4402306149 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen G Gordon, Alessandra Sacco, Stephen G. Lomber

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroimagingSkullStripping (fiber)Computer scienceNuclear medicineComputer visionNeuroscienceMedicinePsychologyEngineeringAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skull stripping is a fundamental preprocessing step in modern neuroimaging analyses that consists of removing non-brain voxels from structural images. When performed entirely manually, this laborious step can be rate-limiting for analyses, with the potential to influence the population size chosen. This emphasizes the need for a fully- or semi-automated masking procedure to decrease man-hours without an associated decline in accuracy. These algorithms are plentiful in human neuroimaging but are relatively lacking for the plethora of animal species used in research. Unfortunately, software designed for humans cannot be easily transformed for animal use due to the high amount of tailoring required to accurately account for the considerable degree of variation within the highly folded human cortex. As most animals have a relatively less complex cerebral morphology, intersubject variability is consequently decreased, presenting the possibility to simply warp the brain mask of a template image into subject space for the purpose of skull stripping. This study presents the use of the Cat Automated Registration-based Skull Stripper (CARSS) tool on feline structural images. Validation metrics revealed that this method was able to perform on par with manual raters on >90 % of scans tested, and that its consistency across multiple runs was superior to that of masking performed by two independent raters. Additionally, CARSS outperformed three well-known skull stripping programs on the validation dataset. Despite a handful of manual interventions required, the presented tool reduced the man-hours required to skull strip 60 feline images over tenfold when compared to a fully manual approach, proving to be invaluable for feline neuroimaging studies, particularly those with large population sizes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207