Resolution-Dependent Estimates of Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changes in brain lesion loads assessed with magnetic resonance imaging obtained at 1.5 Telsa (T) are used as a measure of disease evolution in natural history studies and treatment trials of multiple sclerosis. METHODS: A comparison was made between the total lesion volume and individual lesions observed on 1.5 T images and on high-resolution 4 T images. Lesions were quantified using a computer-assisted segmentation tool. RESULTS: There was a 46% increase in the total number of lesions detected with 4 T versus 1.5 T imaging (p < 0.005). The 4 T also showed a 60% increase in total lesion volume when compared with the 1.5 T (p < 0.005). In several instances, the 1.5 T scans showed individual lesions that coalesced into larger areas of abnormality in the 4 T scans. The relationship between individual lesion volumes was linear (slope 1.231) showing that the lesion volume observed at 4 T increased with the size of the lesion detected at 1.5 T. The 4 T voxels were less than one quarter the size of those used at 1.5 T and there were no consistent differences between their signal-to-noise ratios. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in signal strength that accompanied the increase in field strength compensated for the loss in signal amplitude produced by the use of smaller voxels. This enabled the acquisition of images with improved resolution, resulting in increased lesion detection at 4 T and larger lesion volumes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".