Estimating the sample size required to detect an arterial spin labelling magnetic resonance imaging perfusion abnormality in voxel-wise group analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Voxel-based analyses are pervasive across the range of neuroimaging techniques. In the case of perfusion imaging using arterial spin labelling (ASL), a low signal-to-noise technique, there is a tradeoff between the contrast-to-noise required to detect a perfusion abnormality and its spatial localisation. In exploratory studies, the use of an a priori region of interest (ROI), which has the benefit of averaging multiple voxels, may not be justified. Thus the question considered in this study pertains to the sample size that is required to detect a voxel-level perfusion difference between groups and two algorithms are considered. NEW METHOD: Empirical 3T ASL data were acquired from 25 older adults and simulations were performed based on the group template cerebral blood flow (CBF) images. General linear model (GLM) and permutation-based algorithms were tested for their ability to detect a predefined hypoperfused ROI. Simulation parameters included: inter and intra-subject variability, degree of hypoperfusion and sample size. The true positive rate was used as a measure of sensitivity. RESULTS: For a modest group perfusion difference, i.e., 10%, 37 participants per group were required when using the permutation-based algorithm, whereas 20 participants were required for the GLM-based algorithm. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: This study advances the perfusion power calculation literature by considering a voxel-wise analysis with correction for multiple comparison. CONCLUSIONS: The sample size requirement to detect group differences decreased exponentially in proportion to increased degree of hypoperfusion. In addition, sensitivity to detect a perfusion abnormality was influenced by the choice of algorithm.
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 | 0.069 | 0.302 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".