Application of Texture Analysis in Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis by Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Visual inspection by magnetic resonance (MR) images cannot detect microscopic tissue changes occurring in MS in normal appearing white matter (NAWM) and may be perceived by the human eye as having the same texture as normal white matter (NWM). The aim of the study was to evaluate computer aided diagnosis (CAD) system using texture analysis (TA) in MR images to improve accuracy in identification of subtle differences in brain tissue structure. MATERIAL & METHODS: The MR image database comprised 50 MS patients and 50 healthy subjects. Up to 270 statistical texture features extract as descriptors for each region of interest. The feature reduction methods used were the Fisher method, the lowest probability of classification error and average correlation coefficients (POE+ACC) method and the fusion Fisher plus the POE+ACC (FFPA) to select the best, most effective features to differentiate between MS lesions, NWM and NAWM. The features parameters were used for texture analysis with principle component analysis (PCA) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Then first nearest-neighbour (1-NN) classifier was used for features resulting from PCA and LDA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to examine the performance of TA methods. RESULTS: The highest performance for discrimination between MS lesions, NAWM and NWM was recorded for FFPA feature parameters using LDA; this method showed 100% sensitivity, specificity and accuracy and an area of Az=1 under the ROC curve. CONCLUSION: TA is a reliable method with the potential for effective use in MR imaging for the diagnosis and prediction of MS.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".