Revisiting the interpretation of axon diameter mapping using higher-order signal representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (dMRI) has emerged as an imaging modality of interest to measure axon diameters noninvasively. The previously observed b-½ power law scaling suggests that high b-value dMRI signals originate from water confined within “stick” geometries, representing impermeable cellular processes. A key assumption is that any deviation from this power law at high b-values—modeled as a non-zero perpendicular intracellular diffusivity—must be specifically axonal in origin. Recent developments in axon diameter mapping build upon such assumptions, thereby neglecting the possibility that other cellular structures, such as glial processes, may also exhibit similar “stick”-like characteristics. This explorative study investigates the validity of axon diameter mapping by evaluating its robustness to experimental variation. In particular, it compares the mapping of the axon diameter using the zeroth- (spherical mean) and second-order (spherical variance) rotationally invariant spherical harmonic (RISH) features. As a condition for validity, axon diameter should be robust to such variations in RISH order. A novel log-linear estimator with a closed-form solution for computationally efficient axon diameter mapping is introduced, which can be applied with a minimum of two high b-value measurements. Using this estimator, it was observed that axon diameter measurements vary with RISH order, suggesting that high b-value signals from non-axonal cellular sources may confound axon diameter mapping. Monte Carlo simulations show that such dependence on RISH order could be explained by the presence of glial processes. Overall, these results highlight the need for caution in the interpretation of dMRI-derived “axon” diameter.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".