MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407618233 · doi:10.1101/2025.02.12.637854

3BTRON: A Blood-Brain Barrier Recognition Network

2025· preprint· en· W4407618233 on OpenAlexaff
Nan Fletcher‐Lloyd, Isabel Bravo‐Ferrer, Katrine Gaasdal-Bech, Blanca Díaz‐Castro, Payam Barnaghi

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUK Dementia Research InstituteAlzheimer’s Research UKWellcome TrustRoyal Academy of EngineeringAlzheimer's Society
KeywordsBlood–brain barrierComputer scienceNeurosciencePsychologyCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The blood-brain barrier (BBB) plays a crucial role in maintaining brain homeostasis. During ageing, the BBB undergoes structural alterations. Electron microscopy (EM) is the gold standard for studying the structural alterations of the brain vasculature. However, analysis of EM images is time-intensive and can be prone to selection bias, limiting our understanding of the structural effect of ageing on the BBB. Here, we introduce 3BTRON, a deep learning framework for the automated analysis of electron microscopy images of the BBB. Using age as a readout, we trained and validated our model on a unique dataset (n = 359). We show that the proposed model could confidently identify the BBB of aged mouse brains from young mouse brains across three different brain regions, achieving a sensitivity of 77.8% and specificity of 80.0% post-stratification when predicting on unseen data. Additionally, feature importance methods revealed the spatial features of each image that contributed most to the predictions. These findings demonstrate a new data-driven approach to analysing age-related changes in the architecture of the BBB.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207