Reproducibility and variability of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging markers in cerebral small vessel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain imaging is essential for the diagnosis and characterization of cerebral small vessel disease. Several magnetic resonance imaging markers have therefore emerged, providing new information on the diagnosis, progression, and mechanisms of small vessel disease. Yet, the reproducibility of these small vessel disease markers has received little attention despite being widely used in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. This review focuses on the main small vessel disease-related markers on magnetic resonance imaging including: white matter hyperintensities, lacunes, dilated perivascular spaces, microbleeds, and brain volume. The aim is to summarize, for each marker, what is currently known about: (1) its reproducibility in studies with a scan-rescan procedure either in single or multicenter settings; (2) the acquisition-related sources of variability; and, (3) the techniques used to minimize this variability. Based on the results, we discuss technical and other challenges that need to be overcome in order for these markers to be reliably used as outcome measures in future clinical trials. We also highlight the key points that need to be considered when designing multicenter magnetic resonance imaging studies of small vessel disease.
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 | 0.028 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".