Rootlets-based registration to the PAM50 spinal cord template
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord functional MRI studies require precise localization of spinal levels for reliable voxel-wise group analyses. Traditional template-based registration of the spinal cord uses intervertebral discs for alignment. However, substantial anatomical variability across individuals exists between vertebral and spinal levels. This study proposes a novel registration approach that leverages spinal nerve rootlets to improve alignment accuracy and reproducibility across individuals. We developed a registration method leveraging dorsal cervical rootlets segmentation and aligning them non-linearly with the PAM50 spinal cord template. Validation was performed on a multi-subject, multi-site dataset (n = 267, 44 sites) and a multi-subject dataset with various neck positions (n = 10, 3 sessions). We further validated the method on task-based functional MRI (n = 23) to compare group-level activation maps using rootlet-based registration to traditional disc-based methods. Rootlet-based registration showed superior alignment across individuals compared with the traditional disc-based method on n = 226 individuals, and on n = 176 individuals for morphological analyses. Notably, rootlet positions were more stable across neck positions. Group-level analysis of task-based functional MRI using rootlet-based registration increased Z scores and activation cluster size compared with disc-based registration (number of active voxels from 3292 to 7978). Rootlet-based registration enhances both inter- and intra-subject anatomical alignment and yields better spatial normalization for group-level fMRI analyses. Our findings highlight the potential of rootlet-based registration to improve the precision and reliability of spinal cord neuroimaging group analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".