MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560166590 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2016-314597.108

D9 An evaluation of methods for the volumetric measurement of grey matter in huntington’s disease

2016· article· en· W2560166590 on OpenAlexaff
Eileanoir B. Johnson, Alexandra Dürr, Blair R. Leavitt, Raymund A.C. Roos, Douglas R. Langbehn, Sarah J Tabriz, Rachael I. Scahill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuntington's diseaseGrey matterMedicineStage (stratigraphy)DiseaseNuclear medicineInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyWhite matterBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In pre-manifest Huntington’s disease there is an increase in symptom severity that is thought to be accompanied by an acceleration of cortical grey matter (CGM) volume loss in the period immediately prior to diagnosis that has not been well characterised. Before examining CGM change, the tools used to calculate CGM volume need evaluation as it is unclear which software most accurately and sensitively measures between-group differences and within-group change in CGM in HD. Aims Conduct a validation of software in order to determine the most sensitive and accurate tools for quantifying disease-related between-group differences and within-group change in CGM in HD. Methods 20 controls, 40 premanifest HD (20 preHD-A, >10.8 yrs from predicted onset; 20 preHD-B, <10.8 yrs from predicted onset) and 40 early HD (20 stage 1 (HD1); 20 stage 2 (HD2)) participants from Track-HD were included. 3 T T1-weighted scans were acquired from four scanners. Participants had two 2008 baseline scans and one follow-up scan at 2011. Software used for comparison was FSL FAST version 5.0.9, SPM 8 Unified Segment and New Segment, SPM 12 Segment, FreeSurfer version 5.3.0, ANTs version 2.1.0, and MALPEM version 1.2. Segmented volumes underwent visual quality control (QC). Intra-class correlations were calculated for 2008 back-to-back scans, and between-group differences and within-group change were examined via generalised least squares regression. Total GM, CGM and lobular GM were investigated. Results Visual QC highlighted that some techniques over- and under-estimate GM, especially in occipital and temporal regions. Most methods showed high reliability. Results for between-group and within-group analysis varied depending on the software used. Conclusions Whilst reliability was high, between and within-group results and detailed QC suggest that accuracy of the software is variable. This study provides recommendations for the measurement of total, cortical and lobular GM in HD.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207