Considerations and recommendations from the <scp>ISMRM</scp> diffusion study group for preclinical diffusion <scp>MRI</scp> : Part 1: In vivo small‐animal imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small-animal diffusion MRI (dMRI) has been used for methodological development and validation, characterizing the biological basis of diffusion phenomena, and comparative anatomy. The steps from animal setup and monitoring, to acquisition, analysis, and interpretation are complex, with many decisions that may ultimately affect what questions can be answered using the resultant data. This work aims to present selected considerations and recommendations from the diffusion community on best practices for preclinical dMRI of in vivo animals. We describe the general considerations and foundational knowledge that must be considered when designing experiments. We briefly describe differences in animal species and disease models and discuss why some may be more or less appropriate for different studies. We, then, give recommendations for in vivo acquisition protocols, including decisions on hardware, animal preparation, and imaging sequences, followed by advice for data processing including preprocessing, model-fitting, and tractography. Finally, we provide an online resource that lists publicly available preclinical dMRI datasets and software packages to promote responsible and reproducible research. In each section, we attempt to provide guides and recommendations, but also highlight areas for which no guidelines exist (and why), and where future work should focus. Although we mainly cover the central nervous system (on which most preclinical dMRI studies are focused), we also provide, where possible and applicable, recommendations for other organs of interest. An overarching goal is to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of small animal dMRI acquisitions and analyses, and thereby advance biomedical knowledge.
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 | 0.103 | 0.285 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.061 |
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".