MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415248294 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-20016-7

Standardization of postmortem human brainstem along the rostrocaudal axis to accommodate for inter-specimen structural heterogeneity

2025· article· en· W4415248294 on OpenAlexaff
Natasha Zaarour, Andrew Lim, Aron S. Buchman, P. Saberi, Gopal Varma, Veronique VanderHorst

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBrainstemStandardizationPostmortem studiesCentral nervous systemBrain development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing recognition of the critical need for postmortem studies of human brainstem tissues for elucidating the pathophysiology of neurological disorders. While the brainstem is critical for a myriad of functions it is relatively small with a complex organization of tracts and nuclei. So, interindividual heterogeneity in brainstem structure that can derive from tissue procurement or be related to anthropometric features like height or weight can greatly impact studies of brainstem structure and function. In the absence of explicit approaches to account for these sources of heterogeneity drawing inferences from interindividual comparisons can be challenging. This study used postmortem brainstem samples from well-characterized older decedents to systematically assess factors contributing to heterogeneity in the length of whole brainstem samples. These findings led to a standardized approach to reproducibly assign rostrocaudal levels, with standardization relying upon readily identifiable internal anatomic landmarks. We validated this approach using postmortem MRI imaging. Standardized brainstem length correlated positively with subject height and brain weight but not age of death. By providing a reference series, this study will facilitate the assignment of reproducible levels to individual histological sections or MRI images when full brainstem specimens are not available, promoting reproducibility within and across different studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→