Improving the clinical correlation of multiple sclerosis black hole volume change by paired-scan analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The change in T 1-hypointense lesion ("black hole") volume is an important marker of pathological progression in multiple sclerosis (MS). Black hole boundaries often have low contrast and are difficult to determine accurately and most (semi-)automated segmentation methods first compute the T 2-hyperintense lesions, which are a superset of the black holes and are typically more distinct, to form a search space for the T 1w lesions. Two main potential sources of measurement noise in longitudinal black hole volume computation are partial volume and variability in the T 2w lesion segmentation. A paired analysis approach is proposed herein that uses registration to equalize partial volume and lesion mask processing to combine T 2w lesion segmentations across time. The scans of 247 MS patients are used to compare a selected black hole computation method with an enhanced version incorporating paired analysis, using rank correlation to a clinical variable (MS functional composite) as the primary outcome measure. The comparison is done at nine different levels of intensity as a previous study suggests that darker black holes may yield stronger correlations. The results demonstrate that paired analysis can strongly improve longitudinal correlation (from -0.148 to -0.303 in this sample) and may produce segmentations that are more sensitive to clinically relevant changes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".