pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21799 · v1 · pith:76KJIUAMnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 📡 eess.IV

Large-Scale Deployment and Analytical Implications of Structured Quality Control in Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Michael E. Kim , Chenyu Gao , Karthik Ramadass , Gaurav Rudravaram , Elyssa M. McMaster , Adam M. Saunders , Yisu Yang , Elias Levy
show 12 more authors
Praitayini Kanakaraj Nancy R. Newlin Zhiyuan Li Nazirah Mohd Khairi Blake E. Dewey The HABS-HD Study Team Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative Kurt G. Schilling Derek Archer Timothy J. Hohman Bennett A. Landman Yihao Liu
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 07:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.IV
keywords diffusion MRIquality controlvisual inspectionpipeline hierarchyfailure modesdMRI processingstructured QCwhite matter microstructure
0
0 comments X

The pith

Downstream dMRI outputs that pass visual QC can still depend on failed upstream steps detectable only by checking the full pipeline hierarchy.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper applies a structured visual quality control process to 18,328 diffusion MRI scans drawn from nine datasets and processed through seven representative pipelines. It establishes that failures in early processing steps can go unnoticed when only later outputs are inspected, because those later outputs may still appear acceptable even when built on faulty inputs. A reader would care because modern dMRI studies produce growing numbers of quantitative white-matter measures whose reliability hinges on catching these hidden dependencies before they affect statistical or clinical conclusions. The work further shows that the right level of inspection detail varies with each algorithm's spatial output structure.

Core claim

By visually evaluating outputs across the full hierarchy of seven dMRI processing pipelines on more than 18,000 scans, the authors found that downstream results passing QC may rest on failed upstream dependencies, and these failures become visible only through systematic inspection of the entire pipeline sequence. They also observed that the appropriate granularity of QC—whether selective or global exclusion is warranted—depends on the spatial structure produced by each specific algorithm.

What carries the argument

Structured visual inspection of the full pipeline hierarchy, which examines every processing stage rather than only final outputs to reveal hidden upstream failures.

If this is right

  • Large-scale structured QC can be carried out on thousands of dMRI scans without prohibitive cost.
  • Validity of quantitative white-matter findings requires QC checks that span every stage of the processing hierarchy.
  • QC decisions must be made at different levels of granularity depending on the algorithm's output structure.
  • Common failure modes become identifiable once the full pipeline is examined rather than isolated stages.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same hierarchical QC logic could be tested on other imaging modalities that chain multiple preprocessing steps before producing quantitative maps.
  • Patterns observed in this visual inspection could guide development of automated QC tools that flag likely upstream issues before they reach final outputs.
  • Studies reporting dMRI results might strengthen their claims by documenting that all pipeline stages passed equivalent visual review.

Load-bearing premise

Expert visual inspection is consistent and sensitive enough to detect every clinically or analytically relevant failure mode in the seven pipelines and nine datasets.

What would settle it

Re-processing a subset of scans that showed upstream failures under full-hierarchy QC and finding no measurable difference in downstream quantitative metrics such as fractional anisotropy or mean diffusivity compared with fully clean scans would challenge the claim.

read the original abstract

Purpose: Diffusion MRI (dMRI) provides a diverse set of quantitative measures and derived datatypes to assess white matter microstructure and macrostructure. Coupled with the increasing size of imaging studies using dMRI, the number of downstream outputs requiring quality control (QC) will continue to grow. Previous work has shown that failure modes which are often not evident from aggregate metrics or summary statistics can be identified through structured visual inspection. This work aims to better understand common failure modes and the expected characteristics of valid dMRI processing outputs to ensure the validity and interpretability of quantitative findings. Approach: We deployed a structured QC framework to assess 18,328 dMRI scans across nine datasets, visually evaluating the outputs of seven processing pipelines representative of conventional dMRI analyses. Results: Downstream outputs that pass visual QC may still rely on failed upstream dependencies; such failures may only be visually detectable through systematic inspection of the full pipeline hierarchy. Additionally, appropriate QC granularity is algorithm-specific, as the spatial structure of each algorithm's outputs determines whether failures warrant selective or global exclusion. Conclusion: This work demonstrates the feasibility and analytical value of large-scale, structured QC for dMRI processing pipelines. Our results highlight the need for systematic QC spanning the full processing hierarchy to ensure the validity and interpretability of quantitative findings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports deployment of a structured visual QC framework across 18,328 dMRI scans from nine datasets using seven processing pipelines. It claims that downstream outputs passing visual QC can still depend on failed upstream steps detectable only via full pipeline hierarchy inspection, and that QC granularity must be algorithm-specific due to output spatial structure.

Significance. If the observations hold, the work supplies large-scale empirical support for hierarchical QC in dMRI to safeguard quantitative validity, showing that summary metrics miss certain failures and that pipeline-specific exclusion rules are needed. The deployment scale is a concrete strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section: the central claim that upstream failures are only detectable through full-hierarchy inspection rests on visual QC judgments, yet no inter-rater agreement statistics (e.g., Fleiss' kappa or pairwise agreement rates) or correlation with downstream quantitative bias are reported. This is load-bearing for the reproducibility of the upstream-downstream mismatch observation.
  2. [Methods] Methods (QC framework description): the criteria used to flag failures in upstream dependencies (e.g., eddy current correction or tensor estimation steps) are not accompanied by any sensitivity analysis or validation against known synthetic failure modes, leaving the claim that visual inspection is sufficiently sensitive across the seven pipelines unquantified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the Results sentence could explicitly name the seven pipelines and nine datasets to improve immediate readability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions (assumed present in full text): several pipeline output examples would benefit from arrows or annotations highlighting the specific upstream failure being illustrated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. These observations help clarify the presentation of our large-scale QC deployment and its implications. We respond to each major comment below, indicating revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: the central claim that upstream failures are only detectable through full-hierarchy inspection rests on visual QC judgments, yet no inter-rater agreement statistics (e.g., Fleiss' kappa or pairwise agreement rates) or correlation with downstream quantitative bias are reported. This is load-bearing for the reproducibility of the upstream-downstream mismatch observation.

    Authors: We agree that formal inter-rater agreement metrics would strengthen claims about the reliability of the visual judgments underlying the upstream-downstream mismatch observation. The QC assessments followed a single-rater protocol with explicit, algorithm-specific criteria developed through pilot testing and documented in the Methods and Supplementary Materials. We have revised the manuscript to add a dedicated paragraph in the Methods describing rater training and internal consistency procedures, and we have expanded the Discussion to explicitly acknowledge the absence of multi-rater statistics as a limitation while noting that the scale and cross-dataset consistency of the observed mismatches provide supporting evidence. We have also augmented the Results with additional concrete examples drawn from the nine datasets that illustrate measurable quantitative bias (e.g., elevated variance in scalar maps) when upstream failures were present but downstream outputs initially appeared acceptable. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods (QC framework description): the criteria used to flag failures in upstream dependencies (e.g., eddy current correction or tensor estimation steps) are not accompanied by any sensitivity analysis or validation against known synthetic failure modes, leaving the claim that visual inspection is sufficiently sensitive across the seven pipelines unquantified.

    Authors: The failure-flagging criteria are explicitly enumerated for each of the seven pipelines in the Methods section and Supplementary Materials, drawing on established visual QC conventions in the dMRI literature. We acknowledge that a dedicated sensitivity analysis against synthetic failure modes would offer a more quantitative assessment of detection sensitivity. Because the study focus is observational deployment across real-world data rather than controlled simulation, we have not performed such an analysis. In the revised manuscript we have added a paragraph in the Discussion that references prior targeted validation studies for individual dMRI steps (eddy correction, tensor fitting) and clarifies that our claims rest on the frequency and downstream consequences of failures observed in actual acquisitions rather than on simulated sensitivity bounds. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical QC deployment with minor non-load-bearing self-citation

full rationale

The manuscript is an observational deployment study reporting patterns from visual inspection of 18,328 dMRI scans processed through seven pipelines. Central claims about upstream-downstream mismatches and algorithm-specific QC granularity arise directly from the described systematic review rather than from any fitted model, equation, or self-referential derivation. A reference to prior structured visual QC frameworks appears in the abstract and introduction but is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or to justify the new hierarchy findings; the present results remain independently falsifiable via the reported dataset and pipeline outputs. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input predictions, or ansatz smuggling are present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the premise that visual inspection by trained reviewers constitutes a reliable reference standard for detecting processing failures. No free parameters are fitted; no new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Visual inspection by domain experts is a valid and sufficiently sensitive method for identifying dMRI processing failures that affect quantitative outputs.
    Invoked in the Approach and Results sections as the basis for evaluating all pipeline outputs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5861 in / 1320 out tokens · 47894 ms · 2026-05-22T07:41:18.141336+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jones, Derek K , year=

    work page

  2. [2]

    2019 , publisher=

    Novikov, Dmitry S and Fieremans, Els and Jespersen, Sune N and Kiselev, Valerij G , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    2024 , publisher=

    Kamagata, Koji and Andica, Christina and Uchida, Wataru and Takabayashi, Kaito and Saito, Yuya and Lukies, Matthew and Hagiwara, Akifumi and Fujita, Shohei and Akashi, Toshiaki and Wada, Akihiko and others , journal=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    NMR in Biomedicine , volume=

    Diffusion imaging in multiple sclerosis: research and clinical implications , author=. NMR in Biomedicine , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Neurotherapeutics , volume=

    Diffusion tensor imaging of the brain , author=. Neurotherapeutics , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    2021 , publisher=

    Hansen, Colin B and Yang, Qi and Lyu, Ilwoo and Rheault, Francois and Kerley, Cailey and Chandio, Bramsh Qamar and Fadnavis, Shreyas and Williams, Owen and Shafer, Andrea T and Resnick, Susan M and others , journal=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    2022 , publisher=

    Yang, Qi and Hansen, Colin B and Cai, Leon Y and Rheault, Francois and Lee, Ho Hin and Bao, Shunxing and Chandio, Bramsh Qamar and Williams, Owen and Resnick, Susan M and Garyfallidis, Eleftherios and others , journal=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    2008 , publisher=

    Human brain white matter atlas: identification and assignment of common anatomical structures in superficial white matter , author=. 2008 , publisher=

    work page 2008

  9. [9]

    2009 , publisher=

    Oishi, Kenichi and Faria, Andreia and Jiang, Hangyi and Li, Xin and Akhter, Kazi and Zhang, Jiangyang and Hsu, John T and Miller, Michael I and van Zijl, Peter CM and Albert, Marilyn and others , journal=. 2009 , publisher=

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    2008 , publisher=

    Mori, Susumu and Oishi, Kenichi and Jiang, Hangyi and Jiang, Li and Li, Xin and Akhter, Kazi and Hua, Kegang and Faria, Andreia V and Mahmood, Asif and Woods, Roger and others , journal=. 2008 , publisher=

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    2018 , publisher=

    Wasserthal, Jakob and Neher, Peter and Maier-Hein, Klaus H , journal=. 2018 , publisher=

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    2018 , publisher=

    Watanabe, Anri and Nakamae, Takashi and Sakai, Yuki and Nishida, Seiji and Abe, Yoshinari and Yamada, Kei and Yokota, Isao and Narumoto, Jin , journal=. 2018 , publisher=

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    2007 , publisher=

    Probabilistic diffusion tractography with multiple fibre orientations: What can we gain? , author=. 2007 , publisher=

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    2021 , publisher=

    Yeh, Chun-Hung and Jones, Derek K and Liang, Xiaoyun and Descoteaux, Maxime and Connelly, Alan , journal=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience , volume=

    Graph theory methods: applications in brain networks , author=. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    2019 , publisher=

    Alexander, Daniel C and Dyrby, Tim B and Nilsson, Markus and Zhang, Hui , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    bioRxiv , year=

    White matter microstructure and macrostructure brain charts across the human lifespan , author=. bioRxiv , year=

    work page

  18. [18]

    Scientific Data , volume=

    Zhu, Alyssa H and Nir, Talia M and Javid, Shayan and Villal. Scientific Data , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Imaging Neuroscience , volume=

    White matter tract microstructure, macrostructure, and associated cortical gray matter morphology across the lifespan , author=. Imaging Neuroscience , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Depression and Anxiety , volume=

    Effect sizes of associations between neuroimaging measures and affective symptoms: A meta-analysis , author=. Depression and Anxiety , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Translational Psychiatry , volume=

    Thompson, Paul M and Jahanshad, Neda and Ching, Christopher RK and Salminen, Lauren E and Thomopoulos, Sophia I and Bright, Joanna and Baune, Bernhard T and Bertol. Translational Psychiatry , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    2023 , publisher=

    Hohman, Timothy J , journal=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    2010 , organization=

    Quality control of diffusion weighted images , author=. 2010 , organization=

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    2020 , publisher=

    Samani, Zahra Riahi and Alappatt, Jacob Antony and Parker, Drew and Ismail, Abdol Aziz Ould and Verma, Ragini , journal=. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    2023 , organization=

    Sanchez, Thomas and Esteban, Oscar and Gomez, Yvan and Eixarch, Elisenda and Cuadra, Meritxell Bach , booktitle=. 2023 , organization=

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    2008 , publisher=

    Gedamu, Elias L and Collins, D Louis and Arnold, Douglas L , journal=. 2008 , publisher=

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    2017 , publisher=

    Esteban, Oscar and Birman, Daniel and Schaer, Marie and Koyejo, Oluwasanmi O and Poldrack, Russell A and Gorgolewski, Krzysztof J , journal=. 2017 , publisher=

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    2025 , publisher=

    Cieslak, Matthew and Irfanoglu, M Okan and Meisler, Steven L and Salo, Taylor and Raikes, Adam and Cook, Philip A and Chung, Ai Wern and Lee, Erik G and Li, Ruolin and Li, Xu and others , journal=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    PLOS One , volume=

    Scalable quality control on processing of large diffusion-weighted and structural magnetic resonance imaging datasets , author=. PLOS One , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    2016 , publisher=

    Trajectories of cortical thickness maturation in normal brain development—The importance of quality control procedures , author=. 2016 , publisher=

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    2012 , publisher=

    Power, Jonathan D and Barnes, Kelly A and Snyder, Abraham Z and Schlaggar, Bradley L and Petersen, Steven E , journal=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  32. [32]

    2016 , publisher=

    Backhausen, Lea L and Herting, Megan M and Buse, Judith and Roessner, Veit and Smolka, Michael N and Vetter, Nora C , journal=. 2016 , publisher=

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    2019 , publisher=

    Esteban, Oscar and Markiewicz, Christopher J and Blair, Ross W and Moodie, Craig A and Isik, A Ilkay and Erramuzpe, Asier and Kent, James D and Goncalves, Mathias and DuPre, Elizabeth and Snyder, Madeleine and others , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    2021 , issn =

    A quality control pipeline for probabilistic reconstruction of white-matter pathways , journal =. 2021 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109099 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109099 2021

  35. [35]

    and Yang, Qi and Hansen, Colin B

    Cai, Leon Y. and Yang, Qi and Hansen, Colin B. and Nath, Vishwesh and Ramadass, Karthik and Johnson, Graham W. and Conrad, Benjamin N. and Boyd, Brian D. and Begnoche, John P. and Beason-Held, Lori L. and Shafer, Andrea T. and Resnick, Susan M. and Taylor, Warren D. and Price, Gavin R. and Morgan, Victoria L. and Rogers, Baxter P. and Schilling, Kurt G. a...

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.28678

  36. [36]

    and O'Keefe, Timothy M

    Asay, Daniel J. and O'Keefe, Timothy M. and Buckner, Randy L. and Mair, Ross W. , title =. 2025 , publisher =. doi:10.21105/joss.06974 , url =

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.06974 2025

  37. [37]

    PLOS One , volume=

    Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines , author=. PLOS One , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Frontiers in Neuroinformatics , volume=

    Benhajali, Yassine and Badhwar, AmanPreet and Spiers, Helen and Urchs, Sebastian and Armoza, Jonathan and Ong, Thomas and P. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    2019 , publisher=

    Keshavan, Anisha and Yeatman, Jason D and Rokem, Ariel , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    2014 , publisher=

    Oguz, Ipek and Farzinfar, Mahshid and Matsui, Joy and Budin, Francois and Liu, Zhexing and Gerig, Guido and Johnson, Hans J and Styner, Martin , journal=. 2014 , publisher=

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    2019 , publisher=

    Bastiani, Matteo and Cottaar, Michiel and Fitzgibbon, Sean P and Suri, Sana and Alfaro-Almagro, Fidel and Sotiropoulos, Stamatios N and Jbabdi, Saad and Andersson, Jesper LR , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Theaud, Guillaume and Descoteaux, Maxime , booktitle=

    work page

  43. [43]

    2021 , publisher=

    Weber, Christopher J and Carrillo, Maria C and Jagust, William and Jack Jr, Clifford R and Shaw, Leslie M and Trojanowski, John Q and Saykin, Andrew J and Beckett, Laurel A and Sur, Cyrille and Rao, Naren P and others , journal=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    2021 , publisher=

    O'Bryant, Sid E and Johnson, Leigh A and Barber, Robert C and Braskie, Meredith N and Christian, Bradley and Hall, James R and Hazra, Nalini and King, Kevin and Kothapalli, Deydeep and Large, Stephanie and others , journal=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    2007 , publisher=

    Beekly, Duane L and Ramos, Erin M and Lee, William W and Deitrich, Woodrow D and Jacka, Mary E and Wu, Joylee and Hubbard, Janene L and Koepsell, Thomas D and Morris, John C and Kukull, Walter A and others , journal=. 2007 , publisher=

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    Current Alzheimer Research , volume=

    Overview and findings from the religious orders study , author=. Current Alzheimer Research , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Neuroepidemiology , volume=

    The Rush Memory and Aging Project: study design and baseline characteristics of the study cohort , author=. Neuroepidemiology , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Current Alzheimer Research , volume=

    The Minority Aging Research Study: ongoing efforts to obtain brain donation in African Americans without dementia , author=. Current Alzheimer Research , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  49. [49]

    2005 , publisher=

    Sager, Mark A and Hermann, Bruce and La Rue, Asenath , journal=. 2005 , publisher=

    work page 2005

  50. [50]

    , howpublished =

    n.d. , howpublished =

    work page

  51. [51]

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , volume=

    Diffusion tensor imaging and beyond , author=. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , volume=

    work page

  52. [52]

    2019 , publisher=

    Tournier, J-Donald and Smith, Robert and Raffelt, David and Tabbara, Rami and Dhollander, Thijs and Pietsch, Maximilian and Christiaens, Daan and Jeurissen, Ben and Yeh, Chun-Hung and Connelly, Alan , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    Oishi, K and Faria, AV and Mori, S , journal=

    work page

  54. [54]

    2014 , publisher=

    Tustison, Nicholas J and Cook, Philip A and Klein, Arno and Song, Gang and Das, Sandhitsu R and Duda, Jeffrey T and Kandel, Benjamin M and van Strien, Niels and Stone, James R and Gee, James C and others , journal=. 2014 , publisher=

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    2009 , publisher=

    Unbiased nonlinear average age-appropriate brain templates from birth to adulthood , author=. 2009 , publisher=

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    2012 , publisher=

    Zhang, Hui and Schneider, Torben and Wheeler-Kingshott, Claudia A and Alexander, Daniel C , journal=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  57. [57]

    2017 , publisher=

    Cousineau, Martin and Jodoin, Pierre-Marc and Garyfallidis, Eleftherios and C. 2017 , publisher=

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    Nature Biotechnology , volume=

    Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows , author=. Nature Biotechnology , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    2018 , publisher=

    Recognition of white matter bundles using local and global streamline-based registration and clustering , author=. 2018 , publisher=

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Analyse et reconstruction de faisceaux de la mati

    Rheault, Francois , year=. Analyse et reconstruction de faisceaux de la mati

    work page

  61. [61]

    2020 , publisher=

    Theaud, Guillaume and Houde, Jean-Christophe and Bor. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    PLOS One , volume=

    Tract profiles of white matter properties: automating fiber-tract quantification , author=. PLOS One , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  63. [63]

    2010 , publisher=

    Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations , author=. 2010 , publisher=

    work page 2010

  64. [64]

    2009 , publisher=

    Pasternak, Ofer and Sochen, Nir and Gur, Yaniv and Intrator, Nathan and Assaf, Yaniv , journal=. 2009 , publisher=

    work page 2009

  65. [65]

    Kim and Ho Hin Lee and Qi Yang and Nazirah Mohd Khairi and Praitayini Kanakaraj and Nancy R

    Chenyu Gao and Michael E. Kim and Ho Hin Lee and Qi Yang and Nazirah Mohd Khairi and Praitayini Kanakaraj and Nancy R. Newlin and Derek B. Archer and Angela L. Jefferson and Warren D. Taylor and Brian D. Boyd and Lori L. Beason-Held and Susan M. Resnick and Yuankai Huo and Katherine D. Van Schaik and Kurt G. Schilling and Daniel Moyer and Ivana Išgum and ...

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Magnetic Resonance Imaging , volume=

    Generalizing deep learning brain segmentation for skull removal and intracranial measurements , author=. Magnetic Resonance Imaging , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    2023 , publisher=

    Yu, Xin and Yang, Qi and Zhou, Yinchi and Cai, Leon Y and Gao, Riqiang and Lee, Ho Hin and Li, Thomas and Bao, Shunxing and Xu, Zhoubing and Lasko, Thomas A and others , journal=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    2016 , publisher=

    Consistent cortical reconstruction and multi-atlas brain segmentation , author=. 2016 , publisher=

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    Medical Image Analysis , volume=

    A cortical shape-adaptive approach to local gyrification index , author=. Medical Image Analysis , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages=

    Novel local shape-adaptive gyrification index with application to brain development , author=. International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages=. 2017 , organization=

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    2012 , publisher=

    FreeSurfer , author=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  72. [72]

    2012 , publisher=

    Jenkinson, Mark and Beckmann, Christian F and Behrens, Timothy EJ and Woolrich, Mark W and Smith, Stephen M , journal=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  73. [73]

    2019 , publisher=

    Schilling, Kurt G and Blaber, Justin and Huo, Yuankai and Newton, Allen and Hansen, Colin and Nath, Vishwesh and Shafer, Andrea T and Williams, Owen and Resnick, Susan M and Rogers, Baxter and others , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    2020 , publisher=

    Schilling, Kurt G and Blaber, Justin and Hansen, Colin and Cai, Leon and Rogers, Baxter and Anderson, Adam W and Smith, Seth and Kanakaraj, Praitayini and Rex, Tonia and Resnick, Susan M and others , journal=. 2020 , publisher=

    work page 2020

  75. [75]

    2022 , publisher=

    Tax, Chantal MW and Bastiani, Matteo and Veraart, Jelle and Garyfallidis, Eleftherios and Irfanoglu, M Okan , journal=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    2019 , publisher=

    Jeurissen, Ben and Descoteaux, Maxime and Mori, Susumu and Leemans, Alexander , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    2019 , publisher=

    Sajedi, Hedieh and Pardakhti, Nastaran , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  78. [78]

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology , volume=

    Human connectomics , author=. Current Opinion in Neurobiology , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    work page 2012

  79. [79]

    Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging , volume=

    Dubois, Jessica and Alison, Marianne and Counsell, Serena J and Hertz-Pannier, Lucie and H. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    2024 , publisher=

    Nelson, Charles A and Frankeberger, Jessica and Chambers, Christina D , journal=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.