Considerations and recommendations from the <scp>ISMRM</scp> Diffusion Study Group for preclinical diffusion <scp>MRI</scp> : Part 3—Ex vivo imaging: Data processing, comparisons with microscopy, and tractography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preclinical diffusion MRI (dMRI) has proven value in methods development and validation, characterizing the biological basis of diffusion phenomena, and comparative anatomy. While dMRI enables in vivo non-invasive characterization of tissue, ex vivo dMRI is increasingly being used to probe tissue microstructure and brain connectivity. Ex vivo dMRI has several experimental advantages that facilitate high spatial resolution and high SNR images, cutting-edge diffusion contrasts, and direct comparison with histological data as a methodological validation. However, there are a number of considerations that must be made when performing ex vivo experiments. The steps from tissue preparation, image acquisition and processing, and interpretation of results are complex, with many decisions that not only differ dramatically from in vivo imaging of small animals, but ultimately affect what questions can be answered using the data. This work concludes a three-part series of recommendations and considerations for preclinical dMRI. Herein, we describe best practices for dMRI of ex vivo tissue, with a focus on image pre-processing, data processing, and comparisons with microscopy. In each section, we attempt to provide guidelines and recommendations but also highlight areas for which no guidelines exist (and why), and where future work should lie. We end by providing guidelines on code sharing and data sharing and point toward open-source software and databases specific to small animal and ex vivo imaging.
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 | 0.112 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.048 |
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".