Sensitivity of quantitative diffusion MRI tractography and microstructure to anisotropic spatial sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diffusion weighted MRI (dMRI) and its models of neural structure provide insight into human brain organization and variations in white matter. A recent study by McMaster, et al. showed that complex graph measures of the connectome, the graphical representation of a tractogram, vary with spatial sampling changes, but biases introduced by anisotropic voxels in the process have not been well characterized. This study uses microstructural measures (fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity) and white matter bundle properties (bundle volume, length, and surface area) to further understand the effect of anisotropic voxels on microstructure and tractography. METHODS: The statistical significance of the selected measures derived from dMRI data were assessed by comparing three white matter bundles at different spatial resolutions with 44 subjects from the Human Connectome Project - Young Adult dataset scan/rescan data using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. The original isotropic resolution (1.25 mm isotropic) was explored with 6 anisotropic resolutions with 0.25 mm incremental steps in the z dimension. Then, all generated resolutions were upsampled to 1.25 mm isotropic and 1 mm isotropic. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between at least one microstructural and one bundle measure at every resolution (p≤0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons). Cohen's d coefficient evaluated the effect size of anisotropic voxels on microstructure and tractography. CONCLUSION: Fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity cannot be recovered with basic up-sampling from low quality data with gold-standard data with the methods selected for this study. However, the bundle measures across our selected regions of interest become more repeatable when voxels are resampled to 1 mm isotropic.
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 | 0.026 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".