MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2037193889 · doi:10.1117/12.467153

Robustness of the brain parenchymal fraction for measuring brain atrophy

2002· article· en· W2037193889 on OpenAlexaff
M. Stella Atkins, Jeffery J. Orchard, Benjamin King Hong Law, Melanie Tory

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrophyBrain sizeRobustness (evolution)Multiple sclerosisParenchymaNeuroimagingComputer scienceMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingNeurosciencePathologyRadiologyPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Other researchers have proposed that the brain parenchymal fraction (or brain atrophy) may be a good surrogate measure for disease progression in patients with Multiple Sclerosis. This paper considers various factors influencing the measure of the brain parenchymal fraction obtained from dual spin-echo PD and T2-weighted head MRI scans. We investigate the robustness of the brain parenchymal fraction with respect to two factors: brain-mask border placement which determines the brain intra-dural volume, and brain scan incompleteness. We show that an automatic method for brain segmentation produces an atrophy measure which is fairly sensitive to the brain-mask placement. We also show that a robust, reproducible brain atrophy measure can be obtained from incomplete brain scans, using data in a centrally placed subvolume of the brain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→