MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561159437

Combining High-Resolution FLAIR and T2 to Improve Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Conspicuity (P4.155)

2016· article· en· W2561159437 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Wiggermann, Enedino Hernández‐Torres, Anthony Traboulsee, David Li, Alexander Rauscher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryNuclear medicineMultiple sclerosisMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineHyperintensityLesionRadiologyHigh resolutionSagittal planeWhite matterPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To develop a high resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) protocol for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) with better contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for MS lesion detection. Background: The conventional MRI protocol for MS includes 2D/3D-FLAIR (fluid attenuated inversion recovery), T2- and/or proton density images. FLAIR and double inversion recovery (DIR) suppress signal from cerebrospinal fluid and/or white matter (WM) to improve WM and cortical lesion visualization, however suffer signal loss. Combining high-resolution 3D-images can overcome weaknesses of individual techniques and improve conspicuity of WM hyperintensities. Methods: Sagittal 3D-T2 and 3D-FLAIR images were acquired at 3T from 5 healthy controls and 7 patients with relapsing-remitting and progressive MS with varying spatial resolutions. FLAIR² images were then computed by registering and multiplying the T2 and FLAIR images together. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and CNR were estimated in these subjects by assessing noise between subsequent acquisitions of the same scan. Additionally, FLAIR² was computed retrospectively in 24 MS patients. Results: FLAIR² provided the best SNR and lesion conspicuity when T2 and FLAIR were acquired at 0.6×0.75×1.35mm³ and reconstructed to 0.3mm³ voxels. Data acquisition of these high-resolution images takes 14 minutes, which is comparable to the acquisition of DIR images at 1mm³. FLAIR² achieves an improvement in contrast between MS lesions and their surrounding WM by 93[percnt], and 158[percnt] compared with DIR and FLAIR and has three times higher SNR than DIR. The 3D-nature of FLAIR² allows for improved visualization of callosal and infratentorial MS lesions and excellent image registration for serial studies. Conclusions: FLAIR² achieves CSF suppression with improved CNR compared to conventional scans, suggesting it may replace DIR. Lesions in the entire brain are captured, including infratentorial regions and most of the cervical cord. The improved detection of WM hyperintensities will also benefit research and diagnosis in Alzheimer9s disease, neurotrauma, stroke and other applications. Disclosure: Dr. Wiggermann has nothing to disclose. Dr. Hernandez-Torres has nothing to disclose. Dr. Traboulsee has received personal compensation for activities with Genzyme and Roche. Dr. Traboulsee has received research support from Genzyme, Roche, Chugai. Dr. Li has received personal compensation for activities with Roche, Nuron Biotech, and Opexa Therapeutics as a consultant. Dr. Rauscher has received personal compensation for activities with Roche Diagnostics Corporation as a scientific advisory board member.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207