Meyer's loop tractography for image-guided surgery depends on imaging protocol and hardware [accepted manuscript]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Surgical resection is an effective treatment for temporal lobe epilepsy but can result in visual field defects. This could be minimized if surgeons knew the exact location of the anterior part of the optic radiation (OR), the Meyer's loop. To this end, there is increasing prevalence of image-guided surgery using diffusion MRI tractography. Despite considerable effort in developing analysis methods, a wide discrepancy in Meyer's loop reconstructions is observed in the literature. Moreover, the impact of differences in image acquisition on Meyer's loop tractography remains unclear. Here, while employing the same state-of-the-art analysis protocol, we explored the extent to which variance in data acquisition leads to variance in OR reconstruction. Methods: Diffusion MRI data were acquired for the same thirteen healthy subjects using standard and state-of-the-art protocols on three scanners with different maximum gradient amplitudes (MGA): Siemens Connectom (MGA = 300 mT/m); Siemens Prisma (MGA = 80 mT/m) and GE Excite-HD (MGA = 40 mT/m). Meyer's loop was reconstructed on all subjects and its distance to the temporal pole (ML-TP) was compared across protocols. Results: A significant effect of data acquisition on the ML-TP distance was observed between protocols (p <.01 to 0.0001). The biggest inter-acquisition discrepancy for the same subject across different protocols was 16.5 mm (mean: 9.4 mm, range: 3.7â16.5 mm). Conclusion: We showed that variance in data acquisition leads to substantive variance in OR tractography. This has direct implications for neurosurgical planning, where part of the OR is at risk due to an under-estimation of its location using conventional acquisition protocols.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".