List of Papers By topics Author List
| Paper Info | Reviews | Meta-review | Author Feedback | Post-Rebuttal Meta-reviews |
Authors
Shu Zhang, Ruoyang Wang, Yanqing Kang, Sigang Yu, Huawen Hu, Haiyang Zhang
Abstract
The 3-hinge gyral folding is the conjunction of gyrus crest lines from three different orientations, which has been proved to be unique anatomically, structurally, and functionally connective patterns. Compared with the normal gyri, the 3-hinge gyri has stronger structural connectivity and participates in more functional networks, which plays an important role in brain function and structure. However, for the large differences of brain across subjects, it is difficult to identify consistent 3-hinge regions across subjects and most previous studies on 3-hinge consistency merely focused on a single mode. In order to study the multi-modal consistency of 3-hinge regions, this paper proposes a joint representation of functional and structural profiles for identifying common and consistent 3-hinge. We use representation of 3-hinge participation in the functional network to obtain the functional consistency of 3-hinge cross subjects, and the distance between 3-hinge region and DICCCOL system to obtain the structural consistency. Combining these two sets of stability, 38 functionally and structurally consistent 3-hinge regions were successfully identified cross subjects. These consistent 3-hinge regions based on multi-modal data are more consistent than that merely based on structural data and experimental results elucidate those consistent 3-hinge regions are more correlated with visual function. This work deepens the understanding of the stability of 3-hinge region and provides basis for further inter-group analysis of 3-hinge gyral folding.
Link to paper
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43993-3_16
SharedIt: https://rdcu.be/dnwNh
Link to the code repository
N/A
Link to the dataset(s)
N/A
Reviews
Review #1
- Please describe the contribution of the paper
The 3-hinge gyral folding is a special pattern of the cortex. But the location of the 3-hinge regions varies across subjects. To investigate the correspondence of the 3-hinge regions across subjects, this paper introduced a method that integrates the structural and functional features of the 3-hinge regions to analyze the correspondence between 3-hinge regions across subjects. The results provide 38 structurally and functionally stable 3-hinge regions across subjects.
- Please list the main strengths of the paper; you should write about a novel formulation, an original way to use data, demonstration of clinical feasibility, a novel application, a particularly strong evaluation, or anything else that is a strong aspect of this work. Please provide details, for instance, if a method is novel, explain what aspect is novel and why this is interesting.
This paper provides a reliable approach to identify 38 regions of the 3-hinge gyral folder by integrating structural and functional pattern.
- Please list the main weaknesses of the paper. Please provide details, for instance, if you think a method is not novel, explain why and provide a reference to prior work.
While the results of this paper may be useful in neuroimaging research, this paper is lack of novelty in the computational approach which may make it less attractive to MICCAI
- Please rate the clarity and organization of this paper
Good
- Please comment on the reproducibility of the paper. Note, that authors have filled out a reproducibility checklist upon submission. Please be aware that authors are not required to meet all criteria on the checklist - for instance, providing code and data is a plus, but not a requirement for acceptance
Good
- Please provide detailed and constructive comments for the authors. Please also refer to our Reviewer’s guide on what makes a good review: https://conferences.miccai.org/2023/en/REVIEWER-GUIDELINES.html
While this is a solid paper on neuroimaging analysis, adding more computational components may be helpful for MICCAI.
- Rate the paper on a scale of 1-8, 8 being the strongest (8-5: accept; 4-1: reject). Spreading the score helps create a distribution for decision-making
5
- Please justify your recommendation. What were the major factors that led you to your overall score for this paper?
This paper may not be suitable for MICCAI.
- Reviewer confidence
Confident but not absolutely certain
- [Post rebuttal] After reading the author’s rebuttal, state your overall opinion of the paper if it has been changed
N/A
- [Post rebuttal] Please justify your decision
N/A
Review #2
- Please describe the contribution of the paper
The authors proposed a joint representation of functional and structural profiles for identifying common and consistent 3-hinge gyral folding landmark. The proposed method has been evaluated on a publicly available dataset, which can be easily used for the other researchers for comparison. The application is of great clinical importance.
- Please list the main strengths of the paper; you should write about a novel formulation, an original way to use data, demonstration of clinical feasibility, a novel application, a particularly strong evaluation, or anything else that is a strong aspect of this work. Please provide details, for instance, if a method is novel, explain what aspect is novel and why this is interesting.
The paper present a joint representation using both functional and structural information to identifying common and consistent 3-hinge gyral folding landmark. The application is of great clinical importance. The proposed method has been evaluated on a publicly available dataset, which can be easily used for the other researchers for comparison.
- Please list the main weaknesses of the paper. Please provide details, for instance, if you think a method is not novel, explain why and provide a reference to prior work.
The technical novelty is so limited. It is easy to come up with the idea. The paper is not very well-organized. The experimental results are too weak to convince the reviewer.
- Please rate the clarity and organization of this paper
Poor
- Please comment on the reproducibility of the paper. Note, that authors have filled out a reproducibility checklist upon submission. Please be aware that authors are not required to meet all criteria on the checklist - for instance, providing code and data is a plus, but not a requirement for acceptance
The reproducibility of the paper is bad. The authors did not share the code. The implementation details of the methods are not presented.
- Please provide detailed and constructive comments for the authors. Please also refer to our Reviewer’s guide on what makes a good review: https://conferences.miccai.org/2023/en/REVIEWER-GUIDELINES.html
The authors are suggested to provide more details for the method implementation. The authors may want to conduct more experiments. The paper is not well-organized and the writing needs improvements. The “DICCCOL” showing in abstract is not defined before used. Please revise this. In section 2.3 the authors did the consistency analysis from anatomical, structural, and functional. The authors maybe can incorport the anatomical information into the joint representation. The title of Table 1 is misleading. Please revise this. Also, the proposed method needs to be compared with some baseline methods.
- Rate the paper on a scale of 1-8, 8 being the strongest (8-5: accept; 4-1: reject). Spreading the score helps create a distribution for decision-making
1
- Please justify your recommendation. What were the major factors that led you to your overall score for this paper?
The novelty of the proposed method is limited. The experimental results are weak. The presentation and organization of the paper are poor.
- Reviewer confidence
Confident but not absolutely certain
- [Post rebuttal] After reading the author’s rebuttal, state your overall opinion of the paper if it has been changed
N/A
- [Post rebuttal] Please justify your decision
N/A
Review #3
- Please describe the contribution of the paper
This paper proposes group-wise consistent 3-hinge regions using functional MRI and diffusion MRI from the HCP cohort. The authors first identify a consistent 3-hinge pattern in the functional network across subjects and refine it using DICCCOL for structural consistency. Their analysis suggests that multimodal data have a more consistent 3-hinge pattern across subjects than unimodal data.
- Please list the main strengths of the paper; you should write about a novel formulation, an original way to use data, demonstration of clinical feasibility, a novel application, a particularly strong evaluation, or anything else that is a strong aspect of this work. Please provide details, for instance, if a method is novel, explain what aspect is novel and why this is interesting.
a) Utilizing the multimodal HCP data to identify a consistent 3-hinge pattern across subjects. b) Suggesting the correlation between these consistent 3-hinge patterns and visual function.
- Please list the main weaknesses of the paper. Please provide details, for instance, if you think a method is not novel, explain why and provide a reference to prior work.
a) Lack of explanation on why the consistent 3-hinge patterns correlate better with visual function b) How does this identification improve our understanding of brain development or aging?
- Please rate the clarity and organization of this paper
Good
- Please comment on the reproducibility of the paper. Note, that authors have filled out a reproducibility checklist upon submission. Please be aware that authors are not required to meet all criteria on the checklist - for instance, providing code and data is a plus, but not a requirement for acceptance
Not applicable
- Please provide detailed and constructive comments for the authors. Please also refer to our Reviewer’s guide on what makes a good review: https://conferences.miccai.org/2023/en/REVIEWER-GUIDELINES.html
a) The authors have utilized all the task-based functional connectivity data including the resting-state connectivity data to identify the functional 3-hinge patterns. In the authors’ opinion, what will be the similarities between the 3-hinge pattern obtained exclusively with resting-state fMRI as compared to the current approach? This would help other investigators develop such a pattern for their population study. b) Why would the structural 3-hinge pattern correlate better with memory and motor functions while the multimodal data correlate better with visual function? c) Was there a statistically significant improvement in the identification of a consistent 3-hinge pattern using multimodal data as compared to structural data? d) Is it possible to test the author’s approach on some pathological datasets to test if there is a shift in this consistent 3-hinge pattern obtained using multimodal data with pathology (e.g. ADNI dataset)?
- Rate the paper on a scale of 1-8, 8 being the strongest (8-5: accept; 4-1: reject). Spreading the score helps create a distribution for decision-making
6
- Please justify your recommendation. What were the major factors that led you to your overall score for this paper?
Clarity of presentation
- Reviewer confidence
Very confident
- [Post rebuttal] After reading the author’s rebuttal, state your overall opinion of the paper if it has been changed
6
- [Post rebuttal] Please justify your decision
The authors have not responded to my concerns but I think it is fine to be presented and being tested by the community,
Primary Meta-Review
- Please provide your assessment of this work, taking into account all reviews. Summarize the key strengths and weaknesses of the paper and justify your recommendation. In case you deviate from the reviewers’ recommendations, explain in detail the reasons why. In case of an invitation for rebuttal, clarify which points are important to address in the rebuttal.
- the problem addressed is somewhat novel - it focuses on identification and alignment of 3 hinge gyral foldings.
- the reviews are mixed, especially reviewer 2 has some serious concerns, I agree with the concerns raised. especially, How does this identification of 3 hinge gyral pattern improve our understanding of brain development or aging?
- the concerns are about limited methodofogical novelty, organization of the paper and experimental results.
Author Feedback
Dear Reviewers, We really appreciate for your time spent on this submission and all the constructive suggestions you made. We thank for the positive comments from reviewer1 and reviewer3, and we have responded to most of the reviewer2’s concerns in the limited space. Reviewer#1: We appreciate your positive comments.
Reviewer#2: Thank you for giving us this opportunity to emphasize the novelty and significance of our work. Question #1: The novelty of the proposed method is limited. Response #Q1: I would like to explain the research background and innovation of this work. Background: One of the most striking features of the brain is the highly wrinkled surface of its cortex. It is very important to study the morphology of folded cortex and brain gyri, which are closely related to the development process and disease state of the brain. The 3-hinge is a newly defined form of cortical fold, which is the intersection of the three gyri. The 3-hinge regions are thought to have stronger structural connections and be involved in more functional brain networks than the normal gyri. Therefore, it is of great significance to further explore the 3-hinge regions, which could give more new insights on the study of mechanism of cortical folding patterns. Innovation: The morphology of cortical folds varies greatly between individuals, so identifying stable 3-hinge regions between individuals is difficult. Moreover, it is difficult to define the feature description of the stability of the 3-hinge regions between individuals, so there will be errors even if manual annotation is used. In this paper, based on fMRI and DTI data, we propose a data-driven algorithm framework that can automatically and massively identify the 3-hinges that are stable between individuals. For functional perspective, we obtain the functional network representation of brain nodes based on dictionary learning and sparse representation algorithm. For structural perspective, we learn the structural connectivity characteristics of brain nodes based on DICCCOL (Dense Individualized and Common Connectivity-based Cortical Landmarks) and white matter distance. DICCCOL is a set of landmarks with structural consistency between groups. Based on the above two methods, we believe that the consistency of 3-hinge regions is associate with the brain function and structure. Thus, we use multi-modal joint analysis to jointly study the consistency from the brain function and structure, then transfer the consistency to the 3-hinge regions and automatically identify the stable 3-hinge regions between individuals. Once we obtain 3-hinge consistency, lots of follow-up studies can be deigned to study the characteristics of 3-hinge regions as well as cortical folding patterns at group level.
Question #2: The experimental results are too weak to convince the reviewer. Response #Q2: In this work, we obtained 38 structurally and functionally stable 3-hinge regions across objects. Specifically, we first identify a consistent 3-hinge pattern in the functional network across subjects and refine it using DICCCOL for structural consistency. Moreover, we analyzed some characteristics of the obtained 3-hinge region. First, compared with the single-modal method with DICCCOL only, the results obtained by our proposed multi-modal method have a more consistent 3-hinge pattern across subjects. Secondly, according to the AAL template, we statistical the distribution of the stable 3-hinge regions, which shows that the stable 3-hinge mode is more relevant to the visual function, many interesting insights are obtained. Compared with the exists manual labeling methods, our framework can automatically extract more stable 3-hinge regions, which provides an idea for the study of inter-group cerebral cortex features.Reviewer#3: We appreciate your positive comments. We will continue to explore the interpretation of the stable 3-hinge regions in future work according to your suggestions.
Post-rebuttal Meta-Reviews
Meta-review # 1 (Primary)
- Please provide your assessment of the paper taking all information into account, including rebuttal. Highlight the key strengths and weaknesses of the paper, clarify how you reconciled contrasting review comments and scores, indicate if concerns were successfully addressed in the rebuttal, and provide a clear justification of your decision. If you disagree with some of the (meta)reviewer statements, you can indicate so in your meta-review. Please make sure that the authors, program chairs, and the public can understand the reason for your decision.
Authors have largely addressed the reviewer concerns.
Meta-review #2
- Please provide your assessment of the paper taking all information into account, including rebuttal. Highlight the key strengths and weaknesses of the paper, clarify how you reconciled contrasting review comments and scores, indicate if concerns were successfully addressed in the rebuttal, and provide a clear justification of your decision. If you disagree with some of the (meta)reviewer statements, you can indicate so in your meta-review. Please make sure that the authors, program chairs, and the public can understand the reason for your decision.
I don’t agree with R2. The story of this paper is in line with a series of papers in this field. It’s not right to deny the contribution based on subjective judgment of 3-hinge representation.
Meta-review #3
- Please provide your assessment of the paper taking all information into account, including rebuttal. Highlight the key strengths and weaknesses of the paper, clarify how you reconciled contrasting review comments and scores, indicate if concerns were successfully addressed in the rebuttal, and provide a clear justification of your decision. If you disagree with some of the (meta)reviewer statements, you can indicate so in your meta-review. Please make sure that the authors, program chairs, and the public can understand the reason for your decision.
The paper got diverse ratings in the reviews. The major concerns are mainly about the novelty of the work, insufficient experimental demonstrations, and paper writing. I appreciate that the authors provided their rebuttal to address these concerns. Unfortunately, I still agree with R2 and recommend to reject this paper.