Visual Rating Scales of White Matter Hyperintensities and Atrophy: Comparison of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
GoalMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the preferred modality for research on structural age-related brain changes. However, computed tomography (CT) is widely available and has practical and cost advantages over MRI for large-scale brain imaging research studies in acutely unwell patients. However, the relationships between MRI and CT measures of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) and atrophy are unclear. We examined the relationships between visual ratings of WMH, atrophy, and old infarcts in patients who had both CT and MRI scans.Materials and MethodsPatients who had both CT and MRI scans in the International Stroke Trial-3 were studied. In both modalities, 2 raters independently completed standardized visual rating scales for WMH, and for central and superficial atrophy using a 5-point scale. In addition, 1 rater recorded old infarcts according to size and location.FindingsSeventy patients with a mean age of 69 years were studied. There were moderate to substantial intrarater CT–MRI agreements for periventricular components of WMH scales (weighted Κappa = .55-.75). Agreements for basal ganglia ratings were lower (weighted Κappa = .18-.44), partly because of the misclassification of prominent perivascular spaces. Atrophy scales showed moderate to substantial CT–MRI agreements (weighted Κappa = .44-.70). MRI was more sensitive in the detection of smaller infarcts and cavitated lesions.ConclusionsStandardized visual rating scales of white matter lesions and atrophy mostly show substantial agreement between CT and MRI. Clinical CT scans have a strong potential for wider exploitation in research studies, particularly in acutely unwell populations. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the preferred modality for research on structural age-related brain changes. However, computed tomography (CT) is widely available and has practical and cost advantages over MRI for large-scale brain imaging research studies in acutely unwell patients. However, the relationships between MRI and CT measures of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) and atrophy are unclear. We examined the relationships between visual ratings of WMH, atrophy, and old infarcts in patients who had both CT and MRI scans. Patients who had both CT and MRI scans in the International Stroke Trial-3 were studied. In both modalities, 2 raters independently completed standardized visual rating scales for WMH, and for central and superficial atrophy using a 5-point scale. In addition, 1 rater recorded old infarcts according to size and location. Seventy patients with a mean age of 69 years were studied. There were moderate to substantial intrarater CT–MRI agreements for periventricular components of WMH scales (weighted Κappa = .55-.75). Agreements for basal ganglia ratings were lower (weighted Κappa = .18-.44), partly because of the misclassification of prominent perivascular spaces. Atrophy scales showed moderate to substantial CT–MRI agreements (weighted Κappa = .44-.70). MRI was more sensitive in the detection of smaller infarcts and cavitated lesions. Standardized visual rating scales of white matter lesions and atrophy mostly show substantial agreement between CT and MRI. Clinical CT scans have a strong potential for wider exploitation in research studies, particularly in acutely unwell populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».