Magnetic resonance imaging pattern recognition in hypomyelinating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypomyelination is observed in the context of a growing number of genetic disorders that share clinical characteristics. The aim of this study was to determine the possible role of magnetic resonance imaging pattern recognition in distinguishing different hypomyelinating disorders, which would facilitate the diagnostic process. Only patients with hypomyelination of known cause were included in this retrospective study. A total of 112 patients with Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease, hypomyelination with congenital cataract, hypomyelination with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and hypodontia, Pelizaeus-Merzbacher-like disease, infantile GM1 and GM2 gangliosidosis, Salla disease and fucosidosis were included. The brain scans were rated using a standard scoring list; the raters were blinded to the diagnoses. Grouping of the patients was based on cluster analysis. Ten clusters of patients with similar magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities were identified. The most important discriminating items were early cerebellar atrophy, homogeneity of the white matter signal on T(2)-weighted images, abnormal signal intensity of the basal ganglia, signal abnormalities in the pons and additional T(2) lesions in the deep white matter. Eight clusters each represented mainly a single disorder (i.e. Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease, hypomyelination with congenital cataract, hypomyelination with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and hypodontia, infantile GM1 and GM2 gangliosidosis, Pelizaeus-Merzbacher-like disease and fucosidosis); only two clusters contained multiple diseases. Pelizaeus-Merzbacher-like disease was divided between two clusters and Salla disease did not cluster at all. This study shows that it is possible to separate patients with hypomyelination disorders of known cause in clusters based on magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities alone. In most cases of Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease, hypomyelination with congenital cataract, hypomyelination with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and hypodontia, Pelizaeus-Merzbacher-like disease, infantile GM1 and GM2 gangliosidosis and fucosidosis, the imaging pattern gives clues for the diagnosis.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".