Rethinking MRI as a measurement device through modular and portable pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The premise of MRI as a reliable measurement device is limited by proprietary barriers and inconsistent implementations, which prevent the establishment of measurement uncertainties. As a result, biomedical studies that rely on these methods are plagued by systematic variance, undermining the perceived promise of quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) and hindering their clinical translation. This review explores the added value of open-source measurement pipelines in minimizing variability sources that would otherwise remain unknown. First, we introduce a tiered benchmarking framework (from black-box to glass-box) that exposes how opacity at different workflow stages propagates measurement uncertainty. Second, we provide a concise glossary to promote consistent terminology for strategies that enhance reproducibility before acquisition or enable valid post-hoc pooling of QIBs. Building on this foundation, we present two illustrative measurement workflows that decouple workflow logic from the orchestration of computational processes in an MRI measurement pipeline, rooted in the core principles of modularity and portability. Designed as accessible entry points for implementation, these examples serve as practical guides, helping users adapt the frameworks to their specific needs and facilitating collaboration. Through critical evaluation of existing approaches, we discuss how standardized workflows can help identify outstanding challenges in translating glass-box frameworks into clinical scanner environments. Ultimately, achieving this goal will require coordinated efforts from QIB developers, regulators, industry partners, and clinicians alike.
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 | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".