MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2118161631 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2009.04.328

P2‐019: The effect of head positioning and repositioning on SIENA‐generated measures of brain volume change: Results from actual Z‐shifts

2009· article· en· W2118161631 on OpenAlexaff
Zografos Caramanos, Vladimir Fonov, Simon J. Francis, Sridar Narayanan, D. Louis Collins, Douglas L. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerIsocenterNuclear medicineVolume (thermodynamics)Imaging phantomCoordinate systemPhysicsNuclear magnetic resonanceMagnetic resonance imagingBiomedical engineeringMedicineMathematicsOpticsRadiologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate, reliable quantification of brain volume change (BVC) in AD patients is important. This can be affected, however, by local-volume changes related to MRI-scanner-gradient nonlinearities and inconsistent positioning of subjects within the scanner (particularly along the Z-axis). Furthermore, standard canthomeatal (CM) alignment results in the cerebrum being centered several cms away from isocenter (Fig-A). Use actual MRI data to quantify and correct the effect of Z-shift-associated gradient-distortion (GD) on SIENA-generated measures of %-BVC (PBVC). High-resolution, volumetric T1-weighted MRI data were acquired in 9 normal adults on a Siemens Sonata 1.5T scanner after: (i) CM-alignment (CM, Fig-A), (ii) moving the scanner bed 50-mm out of the magnet (Z50), and (iii) accurate-as-possible CM repositioning (Repos). A GD field was generated using spherical harmonic expansion to map coordinates from an "ideal" coordinate system (a Lego-DUPLO® phantom) to the imaging coordinate system of the scanner (Fig-B). SIENA v2.5 was used to quantify the amount of PBVC observed between each subject's: (i) CM and Z50 scans, and (ii) CM and Repos scans; both before and after correcting for the observed GD. Relative to CM images, the mean (range) MRI-measured Z-shift was 4.3-mm (-9.0 to 21.1) for Repos images, and -49.2-mm (-50.9 to -48.4) for Z50 images. As shown in Fig-C, Repos-vs.-CM SIENAs had: (i) a median (mean) absolute-error (AE) of 0.15% (0.17%), precision similar to the original SIENA validation studies; and (ii) a max-AE of only 0.35%. Z50-vs.-CM SIENAs had: (i) a higher max-AE of 0.81%, and (ii) a significantly-higher mean-AE of 0.40% (p = 0.003). Correcting for GD: (i) reduced the Z50-vs.-CM max-AE to 0.23%; and (ii) significantly reduced the Z50-vs.-CM mean-AE to 0.15% (p = 0.001), which did not differ from the Repos-vs.-CM mean-AE (p = 0.969). As shown in Fig-D, a strong relationship was found between Z50-vs.-CM PBVC and CM-image Z-location (r = 0.81). Z-shift-associated GDs can have significant effects on observed SIENA-PBVC values, with Z-shifts of similar magnitude having different effects depending on where they center. Accordingly, inadvertent Z-shifts should be avoided or corrected. Consistently aligning the centers of the cerebrum and magnet may decrease the effects of GD on observed BVC.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→