dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
g. , diffusion weighted imaging, FLAIR, or T2-weighted MRI)  [7] [8] [9]. However, MRIs are not routinely collected as part of stroke rehabilitation clinical care, which usually commences at subacute or chronic stages. To obtain neuroimaging data at this stage, rehabilitation researchers often recruit people with stroke to participate in research studies, requiring significant time, funding effort and cost to generate even small datasets. In addition, high-resolution T1-weighted (T1w) MRIs are typically used at this stage to identify and delineate lesioned tissue, as T1w MRI provides excellent spatial resolution and is required for registering other research imaging data, such as functional MRI and diffusion MRI. Although other imaging modalities, such as T2-weighted MRI or FLAIR imaging, would be helpful for identifying additional white matter abnormalities, they are often not routinely collected.
ATLAS v2. 0 includes all the same subjects as v1. 2, with the removal of repeated subjects that had two timepoints (n = 9) so that in ATLAS v2. 0, each subject is only represented once. All subject files have undergone a lesion tracing and preprocessing pipeline (Fig. 2 ) and are named and stored in accordance with the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) (http://bids. neuroimaging. io/)  39. Metadata on scanner information, sample image headers for each cohort, and lesion information for each subject in the training dataset is included in the Supplementary Materials. The metadata also includes time of MRI acquisition in relation to stroke onset in days, where this data was available. However, subject demographic information, such as age, sex, or other clinical outcome measures, is not shared due to privacy concerns and data sharing policies at many of the contributing sites.
We acknowledge that this information would greatly enhance the utility of this dataset; we aim to be able to include this information for at least a subset of data, where allowed, in future releases. Of the 1271 samples, data from 955 samples were randomly split into public training and hidden test datasets across sites, so that the testing set includes a similar multi-site composition as the training set. As mentioned previously, lesion challenges will also have access to 316 samples from new cohorts in order to test the true generalizability of algorithms to completely unseen data. Finally, any previously released data used as part of ATLAS v1. 2 was kept as part of the public training dataset to prevent contamination of the test dataset. a resolution between 1-2 mm 3 (R027, R047, R049, R050).
Each cohort was collected on a single scanner using the same parameters except for 2 cohorts (R027, R049). In these cases, the metadata includes an example of each scanning parameter. The entire dataset (N = 1271) is derived from 44 research cohorts in total. The training (n = 655) and test (n = 300) datasets are derived from the same 33 research cohorts; samples from each cohort are randomly assigned to either training or test datasets so that they will have similar compositions. Thus, algorithms trained on the training dataset should perform well on the test dataset. The generalizability dataset (n = 316) is derived from 11 new cohorts to test the performance of trained algorithms on completely unseen data. During the review process for each lesion mask, metadata on number of lesions and lesion location (left vs.
right hemisphere, cortical vs. subcortical) was manually recorded by a trained team member. This detailed information for each subject can be helpful for sorting the data into subgroups with different lesion characteristics. In the training dataset (n = 655), 61. 9% of subjects had only a single lesion, and 38. 1% had multiple lesions. Of the total subjects with multiple lesions, 7. 2% had multiple lesions contained in either the left or right hemispheres only (noted as "Unilateral"), 18. 5% had multiple lesions in both hemispheres (noted as "Bilateral") and 12. 4% had multiple lesions with at least one lesion in either the cerebellum or brainstem (noted as "Other") (Table  2 ). Lesions were counted as separate and additional if they were non-contiguous with any other lesion. Lesions were nearly equally distributed between left and right hemispheres, with 57.
1% of subjects exhibiting at least one left hemisphere lesion, 58. 8% exhibiting one right hemisphere lesion, and 22. 9% with one lesion in either the cerebellum or brainstem (noted as "Other"). Lesions were also documented as either subcortical, cortical and white matter, or other. Consistent with the criteria used for ATLAS v1. 2, lesions defined as subcortical were contained completely within the white matter and subcortical structures. Lesions defined as cortical and/or white matter indicate that the lesions extend into the cortex; these lesions often also include white matter and/or subcortical structures. Finally, the "Other" category encompasses lesions falling in the brainstem or cerebellum. Among all lesions in the training dataset, 25. 5% were cortical and/or in the white matter, 59.
7% subcortical, and 14. 8% other (Table  3 ). Corresponding metadata includes this information on lesion number and location for each subject in the training dataset. We also provide time of MRI acquisition relative to stroke onset in the metadata in days in a column labeled "days post stroke. " In some cases, the exact number of days between stroke onset and MRI acquisition was not recorded or provided to us. For these participants, a general timeline was included (i. e. , MRI was acquired greater than 180 days post-stroke); this was recorded in a column labeled "chronicity" where 180 indicates they are equal to or greater than 180 days post-stroke. Of note, several records did not have this accompanying information, so they have been marked as "NA". However, we have provided as much data as possible to help inform the evaluation of algorithm performance based on time after stroke.
Metadata information is not provided for individual subjects within the test dataset (n = 300) to avoid biasing algorithms. However, it is presented at a group level. The test dataset is derived from 24 cohorts. Overall, 68. 7% of subjects had only a single lesion and 31. 3% had multiple lesions. Of the subjects with multiple lesions, 5. 3% were marked "Unilateral", 14. 3% were marked "Bilateral", and 11. 7% were marked "Other" (Table  2 ). Lesions were nearly equally distributed between left and right hemispheres, with 51. 7% of subjects exhibiting at least one left hemisphere lesion, 56. 3% with at least one right hemisphere lesion, and 22. 3% with at least one lesion in either the cerebellum or brainstem (noted as "Other"). Lesions were also documented as either subcortical, cortical, or other (existing in the cerebellum or brainstem).
Among all lesions in the testing dataset, 32. 0% were cortical and/or in the white matter, 51. 7% subcortical, 16. 3% other (Table  3 ). Data characteristics between the training and test datasets were similar. Finally, metadata is not provided at all for the generalizability dataset (n = 316) to maintain its purpose of evaluating algorithm performance on unseen and unknown data. However, we note that it is comprised of multi-site data collected for research purposes, similar to the training and test datasets. training for individuals performing lesion tracing. The research team responsible for the lesion segmentation and quality control followed the same training procedure to the training for the team that created ATLAS v1. 2  11  , with the exception of using ITK-SNAP instead of MRIcron, due to its semi-automated lesion interpolation tool.
Training for the lesion identification and tracing process involved study of in-depth neuroanatomy, standardized protocols, instructional videos, and consultations with a neuroradiologist. This protocol includes tracing the same initial set of lesions twice per person, with extensive feedback provided from multiple team members. Our standard operating procedures are freely available online (https://github. com/npnl/ATLAS/). The training manual for ITK-SNAP  37  is freely available (http://www. itksnap. org/docs/fullmanual. php) and was also used as part of the lesion tracing process. Identifying and tracing lesions. For lesion identification, each T1w MRI was opened with ITK-SNAP (Fig. 1 ) and examined carefully. Tracers also received training in the identification of white matter hyperintensities of presumed vascular origin  40  and perivascular spaces, which were excluded from the lesion masks as much as possible.
Lesions were traced using either a mouse or stylus (i. e. , Wacom Intuos Draw). All identified lesions for each subject were contained in a single image file. For lesions spanning a large number of slices (i. e. , >50 slices), the "interpolation" tool was used. Upon completion, raw lesion mask files were saved and named according to a BIDS-compliant naming scheme (see also Data Records). All files were subsequently reviewed for quality control by two additional trained team members. If changes were necessary, edits were conducted by the original tracer. Upon approval, each subject's raw mask and T1w image were added to the raw/native space dataset, then preprocessed and added to the preprocessed dataset. We recognize that manual tracing is a highly subjective process, even across similarly trained individuals, and we aimed to reduce any amount of tracing differences between tracers through multiple quality control steps.
In the current release, we prioritized generating the largest possible dataset for public archiving. However, in a future release, we hope to also release a subset of the data with multiple lesion segmentation masks generated by different tracers. These multiple human ratings for each stroke brain could help establish a baseline for inter-rater variability, given the subjectivity of the task as noted above. preprocessing normalization, registration and defacing. In addition to releasing a dataset in native space with no preprocessing (raw; see Data Records below), we also released a preprocessed dataset that is archived with the International Neuroimaging Data-Sharing Initiative (INDI; Fig. 2 ). Each step in the preprocessing pipeline is identical to ATLAS v1. 2, ensuring consistency across ATLAS versions.
The pipeline includes intensity normalization and registration to a standardized template. In order to fully de-identify images, we also removed any potentially identifying non-brain data, such as facial images (termed defacing), a common procedure required to fully anonymize an MR brain image. First, we corrected for intensity non-uniformity and performed an intensity standardization step, which was completed with scripts included in the MINC-toolkit (https://github. com/BIC-MNI/minc-toolkit). After this correction, we used MINC tools to linearly register both T1w and lesion segmentation images to an MNI-152 template, which is included in the archive. Finally, we defaced the T1w images using the "mri_deface" tool from FreeSurfer (v1. 22) (https://surfer. nmr. mgh. harvard. edu/fswiki/mri_deface).
probabilistic spatial mapping of lesion location. To visualize the average distribution of lesions contained in ATLAS v2. 0 across the whole brain, we created a probabilistic map of lesions in the public stroke brains from the ATLAS v2. 0 training and testing datasets with the MNI template (Fig. 4 ). This was completed with the mincaverage tool found in the MINC-toolkit (https://github. com/BIC-MNI/minc-toolkit). As noted previously, this may not be representative of all strokes and is only meant to visually demonstrate the voxels identified most commonly as lesioned in our dataset. This map has also been provided in NifTI format and uploaded to NeuroVault. org, where it can be freely accessed (https://neurovault. org/images/706022/).
Data Records Data are publicly available in preprocessed format (standardized to MNI-152 space) on INDI 41 (fcon_1000. projects. nitrc. org/indi/retro/atlas. html), a free platform for neuroimaging data sharing. Raw data in native space are available on the Archive of Data on Disability to Enable Policy and research  42  (ADDEP, https://doi. org/10. 3886/ ICPSR36684. v4), which has a more stringent restricted data use agreement to maintain privacy of the raw data. The metadata denotes whether each subject in the training dataset was previously part of the ATLAS v1. 2 release. For the test dataset (n = 300), only the T1w scans, without lesion masks, are released on each platform so that users can test their algorithms on this data and submit their output to lesion segmentation challenges for evaluation.
The generalizability dataset (n = 316) is only available for lesion segmentation challenges (see Lesion Segmentation Challenges below). None of the subjects from the previous ATLAS v1. 2 release are included in either the test or generalizability datasets. Data are maintained in BIDS format  39. There are 33 cohorts in the training and testing datasets, and within each cohort folder are individual subject folders. We used the following naming convention: sub-r***s*** where Table  3. Lesion location (subcortical vs. cortical). The number of lesions identified in specific regions (cortical, subcortical, or other), separated by hemisphere, is shown for the training and testing datasets (955 subjects in total). Note that subjects could have multiple lesions, thus resulting in a total number of lesions that is greater than the total number of subjects.
technical Validation The ATLAS v2. 0 dataset was developed using similar protocols and methods as the ATLAS v1. 2 dataset, which has been successfully utilized to develop numerous lesion segmentation methods for the last several years  [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. For ATLAS v2. 0, detailed manual quality control for image quality occurred during the initial lesion segmentation, and all segmentations were examined for quality by two additional researchers. Following preprocessing, lesions were again checked for proper registration to template space. The ATLAS v2. 0 dataset has been validated and incorporated into several new lesion segmentation challenges (see Lesion Segmentation Challenges below).
Usage Notes Data can be accessed under a standard Data Use Agreement, which requires users to agree to use the data only for research or statistical purposes, and not for the investigation of specific research subjects. Users of the ATLAS v2. 0 dataset should properly acknowledge the data contributions of the authors and laboratories by citing this article and the specific data repository from which they accessed the data. As previously noted, manual lesion segmentation can be subjective, and despite our extensive quality control process, errors can still occur. Any issues or feedback can be submitted on the ATLAS Github page under 'issues' , which will be addressed by our research team (https://github. com/npnl/ATLAS/). Any changes to the data or updates with new data will be released under new ATLAS versions (e.
g. , v2. 1, v2. 2), and changes will be posted on Github. Finally, to accompany ATLAS v2. 0, we also have released updated open-source software for analyzing lesions (Pipeline for Analyzing Lesions After Stroke (PALS))  28. This software allows users to calculate lesion volume,  evaluate lesion overlap with brain regions of interest, and create lesion overlap images (similar to that shown in Fig. 4 ; see Code Availability).
Lesion segmentation challenges. A key purpose of the ATLAS v2. 0 dataset is to provide hidden test data to fairly evaluate the performance of lesion segmentation algorithms. To this end, the ATLAS v2. 0 lesion mask test data (n = 300) and generalizability dataset (n = 316 T1w MRIs and lesion masks) are only available for lesion segmentation challenges upon request to the corresponding author. The ideal challenge will provide fast, web-based evaluation, share results on a public leaderboard, and will require public sharing of submitted algorithms with clear usage instructions to advance scientific knowledge within the community and continually improve on the best available algorithms. Following our ATLAS v1. 2 release, we found that a large percentage of users of the ATLAS dataset are students from around the world who used this data to learn how to apply machine learning, deep learning, and/ or computer vision methods to this challenging problem.
ATLAS v1. 2 was used widely for student theses and class projects, as well as for training individuals in algorithm development, and we anticipate that ATLAS v2. 0 will be used extensively for these purposes as well. Given the educational interest in ATLAS, a challenge using the ATLAS v2. 0 data has been established through a partnership with the Paris-Saclay Center for Data Science using their Rapid Analytics and Model Prototyping (RAMP) project management tool (https://paris-saclay-cds. github. io/ramp-docs/)  43. RAMP challenges are open and collaborative web challenges that provide informative starter kits in Python to reduce the barrier of entry for participants  43. The starter kits provide background information on the problem as well as basic solution code. The RAMP approach democratizes science by allowing novice data scientists and learners to approach new technical problems by providing the foundational knowledge necessary to get started in the field and giving everyone the same starting point.
0 data can be found here: https://ramp. studio/problems/stroke_lesions. This RAMP challenge may also be made available for use by course instructors and can provide a project platform for collaborative learning at events such as Brainhacks, which bring together scientists around the world to work together on challenging brain imaging problems  44. ATLAS v2. 0 is also part of the Ischemic Stroke Lesion Segmentation (ISLES) Challenge at the International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) in 2022 (http://www. isles-challenge. org/). The ISLES challenge is one of the best-known stroke lesion segmentation challenges and has attracted hundreds of researchers to the competition over the years to showcase the performance of novel methods. The ISLES challenge series started in 2015 and has taken place at MICCAI for multiple years, incorporating new datasets and clinical and technical challenges each year  9.
ISLES datasets often serve as benchmarks for the field, and teams are invited to submit their algorithms for publication following the challenge  9, 45, 46. Adding ATLAS v2. 0 to the ISLES challenge introduces stroke data across acute to chronic timepoints into the challenge for the first time and presents a unique single-channel (versus multispectral) imaging challenge. The ISLES 2022 challenge utilizes both ATLAS v2. 0 test and generalizability datasets for algorithm evaluation via the Grand Challenge platform (https://atlas. grand-challenge. org/). Importantly, this platform will be used to publicly and automatically evaluate algorithm performance both during ISLES 2022 and after, for ongoing public evaluation. http://www. isles-challenge. org/We also include an accompanying sample solution on Github to assist users in getting started (see Code Availability).
ENIGMA Stroke Recovery receives new stroke MRI data on an ongoing basis, and we continually generate lesion segmentations that can be used as additional test data. New cohort data may be added to our generalizability dataset and used only in lesion segmentation challenges (e. g. , expanding on our current n = 316 completely hidden test dataset), and we anticipate sharing additional data in future ATLAS releases. In future challenges, data may also be sorted into small, medium and large lesions, as we previously showed that automated methods performed the worst on small, followed by medium, lesions, and perform the best on large lesions  10. This is likely due to the ease of detection of large lesions boundaries, whereas small lesions can often be missed completely or mistaken for other brain pathology  10.
Future challenges may focus on accurate identification of small lesions only, or on improving the accuracy of medium and large lesion segmentation boundaries. In conclusion, ATLAS v2. 0 builds on our previous ATLAS v1. 2 release and provides a total archive of 1271 images, including 955 public images, separated into 655 public training cases and 300 test cases, and 316 completely unseen images from new cohorts available only for lesion segmentation challenges. Our primary goal in releasing ATLAS v2. 0 is to enable the development of more accurate, robust and generalizable lesion segmentation algorithms using single-channel T1-weighted MR images. We anticipate that the larger sample size, hidden test dataset, generalizability dataset, and collaboration with lesion segmentation challenge platforms will lead to the development of improved lesion segmentation algorithms.
code availability The ATLAS v2 lesion segmentations were generated using ITK-SNAP version 3. 8. 0. Our protocols for lesion segmentation can be found on our Github (https://github. com/npnl/atlas). Code used to preprocess the dataset were adapted from the MINC-toolkit (https://github. com/BIC-MNI/minc-toolkit). T1w images were defaced using the "mri_deface" tool from FreeSurfer (v1. 22) (https://surfer. nmr. mgh. harvard. edu/fswiki/mri_deface). PALS, our open-source software to perform lesion analyses, can be accessed at https://github. com/npnl/PALS. Finally, as part of the MICCAI ISLES 2022 challenge, we provide sample code on our Github (https://github. com/ npnl/isles_2022/) to assist users in getting started with the lesion segmentation challenge (e. g. , code to obtain the data, load it, and save predictions in the format expected by our automatic evaluator).
variation across 530 CpG sites mapped to the promoters of 58 genes previously-identified as regulating sensitive periods. Gene-level DNAm summaries were calculated for genes regulating sensitive period opening (n genes =15), closing (n genes =36), and expression (n genes =8). We then performed linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to test associations between seven types of parentreported, time-varying measures of exposure to childhood adversity and DNAm principal components. To our knowledge, this is the first time LDA has been applied to analyze functionally grouped DNAm data to characterize associations between an environmental exposure and epigenetic differences. Results: Suggestive evidence emerged for associations between sexual or physical abuse as well as financial hardship during middle childhood, and DNAm of genetic pathways regulating sensitive period opening and expression.
Gene set-based analyses of DNAm data combine the advantages of discovery-and hypothesis-driven studies by investigating biological pathways rather than specific genes. As such, gene set-based approaches can complement EWAS by providing additional new insights into mechanisms implicated in the pathophysiology of neuropsychiatric disorders  (Do et al. ,  J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f 2015). For example, by considering the DNAm patterns of genes linked to sensitive periods, researchers can investigate the extent to which exposure to childhood adversity has timedependent associations with epigenetic modifications that might disrupt processes involved in developmental plasticity. In this study, we analyzed data from a large, population-based sample to identify if and when childhood adversity exerts stronger effects on DNAm during the first seven years of life.