A Comparison of Accelerated and Non-accelerated MRI Scans for Brain Volume and Boundary Shift Integral Measures of Volume Change: Evidence from the ADNI Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of accelerated MRI scans in place of non-accelerated scans influenced brain volume and atrophy rate measures in controls and subjects with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. We used data from 861 subjects at baseline, 573 subjects at 6 months and 384 subjects at 12 months from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). We calculated whole-brain, ventricular and hippocampal atrophy rates using the k-means boundary shift integral (BSI). Scan quality was visually assessed and the proportion of good quality accelerated and non-accelerated scans compared. We also compared MMSE scores, vascular burden and age between subjects with poor quality scans with those with good quality scans. Finally, we estimated sample size requirements for a hypothetical clinical trial when using atrophy rates from accelerated scans and non-accelerated scans. No significant differences in whole-brain, ventricular and hippocampal volumes and atrophy rates were found between accelerated and non-accelerated scans. Twice as many non-accelerated scan pairs suffered from at least some motion artefacts compared with accelerated scan pairs (p ≤ 0.001), which may influence the BSI. Subjects whose accelerated scans had significant motion had a higher mean vascular burden and age (p ≤ 0.05) whilst subjects whose non-accelerated scans had significant motion had poorer MMSE scores (p ≤ 0.05). No difference in estimated sample size requirements was found when using accelerated vs. non-accelerated scans. Accelerated scans reduce scan time and are better tolerated. Therefore it may be advantageous to use accelerated over non-accelerated scans in clinical trials that use ADNI-type protocols, especially in more cognitively impaired subjects.
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 | 0.034 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".