MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Increased fractional anisotropy and axial diffusivity in the right corticospinal tract of handball players derived from the tract-based spatial statistics group analysis (A and B) and correlation analysis (C and D).

2015· other· en· W6923083889 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Methods and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractional anisotropyCorpus callosumCorticospinal tractAnisotropyThermal diffusivityStatistical analysisWhite matterStatistical parametric mapping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The statistical parametric maps (shown in red yellow) were height-thresholded at p < 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons using permutation-based non-parametric testing across space (FSL’s randomise tool, 5000 permutations). Increased fractional anisotropy (FA) was evident in the corticospinal tract (CST) immediately inferior to the right premotor and primary motor region (Fig 2A) and approximately on the level of the corpus callosum (Fig 2B). The analysis of axial diffusivity revealed that increased FA in the CST of handball players (Figs 2A and 2B) is mainly driven by increased axial diffusivity (Fig 2C). Years of handball training experience were inversely associated with radial diffusivity in a cluster located in the right CST on the height of the corpus callosum (Fig 2D). The corpus callosum is not shown because the finding in that structure was only significant at a trend level towards statistical significance. The regions of interest, here the left and right CST, subjected to the statistical analysis are shown in graded green. x, y, z represent coordinates of the Montreal neurological institute (MNI) stereotactic space.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicEducation Methods and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207