MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409028149 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.26.645559

Standardization of postmortem human brainstem along the rostrocaudal axis to accommodate for heterogeneity in samples

2025· preprint· en· W4409028149 on OpenAlexaff
Natasha Zaarour, Andrew Lim, Aron S. Buchman, P. Saberi, Gopal Varma, Veronique VanderHorst

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrainstemStandardizationBiologyPathologyNeuroscienceMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human postmortem brain tissues provide an indispensable resource that is crucial for the understanding of neurological conditions, whether related to pathology subtype, burden, distribution or cell-type specificity. Pathology staging protocols provide guidelines for standardized sampling of brain tissues, but cover only a subset of regions affected by pathologies. Thus, to study how various neuropathologies and cell types in highly specialized circuit nodes correlate with functions specifically served by these nodes, additional protocols are necessary. This especially applies to brainstem tissues due to the small dimension of regions of interest and interindividual variability of specimens, whether due to procurement or intrinsic differences. Here we systematically assessed factors contributing to heterogeneity in the length of whole brainstem samples and then presented a standardized approach to reproducibly assign rostrocaudal levels, with standardization relying upon readily identifiable internal landmarks. We validated this approach using postmortem MRI imaging. Standardized brainstem length correlated positively with subject height and negatively with subject age of death. By providing a reference series, reproducible levels can be assigned to individual histological sections or MRI images, i.e. when full brainstem specimens are not available and irrespective of platform, promoting reproducibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→