Assessing quantitative MRI techniques using multimodal comparisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of brain structure and change in neuroscience is commonly conducted using macroscopic morphological measures of the brain such as regional volume or cortical thickness, providing little insight into the microstructure and physiology of the brain. In contrast, quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) allows the monitoring of microscopic brain change non-invasively in-vivo, and provides directly comparable values between tissues, regions, and individuals. To support the development and common use of qMRI for cognitive neuroscience, we analysed a set of qMRI and dMRI metrics (R1, R2*, Magnetization Transfer saturation, Proton Density saturation, Fractional Anisotropy, Mean Diffusivity) in 101 healthy young adults. Here we provide a comprehensive descriptive analysis of these metrics and their linear relationships to each other in grey and white matter to develop a more complete understanding of the relationship to tissue microstructure. Furthermore, we provide evidence that combinations of metrics may uncover informative gradients across the brain by showing that lower variance components of PCA may be used to identify cortical gradients otherwise hidden within individual metrics. We discuss these results within the context of microstructural and physiological neuroscience research.
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 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".