Revisiting the Role of Structural Connectivity-Based Parcellation in Thalamic Nuclei Segmentation: comparison with recent state-of-the-art methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate thalamic nuclei segmentation is critical for neuroscience research and clinical interventions such as deep brain stimulation and magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound. Connectivity based parcellation has been widely used for two decades, yet its anatomical validity remains uncertain compared with newer imaging approaches. Methods: We analyzed high resolution diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and T1 weighted data from 67 healthy young adults in the Human Connectome Project. Connectivity based parcellation was performed using probabilistic tractography with cortical targets derived from the HCP MMP1 atlas, generating 8, 11, and 23 region parcellations. Results were compared against three state of the art methods: orientation distribution function (ODF) clustering, track density imaging (TDI), and the structural MRI based segmentation. Group level analyses were conducted in Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (MNI) space, and Dice overlap coefficients were calculated against the histology based Morel atlas. Results: Connectivity based parcellation demonstrated limited anatomical precision, with increasing cortical target counts introducing greater variability and noise without improving nuclear boundary definition. ODF clustering and TDI recovered subdivisions consistent with cytoarchitectonic patterns, particularly in the pulvinar and mediodorsal nuclei. Structural MRI based segmentation achieved the highest overall Dice coefficients, closely approximating Morel defined boundaries, while Connectivity based parcellation consistently underperformed across nuclei. Conclusion: Despite methodological advances, Connectivity based parcellation remains constrained in its ability to delineate thalamic nuclei with histological accuracy. By contrast, structural and diffusion microstructural (ODF, TDI) approaches provide superior nuclear localization. These findings highlight the need for hybrid workflows that integrate structural and diffusion based information to enable more reliable thalamic segmentation for research and clinical targeting applications.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".