An automated statistical technique for counting distinct multiple sclerosis lesions can recover aspects of lesion history and provide relevant disease information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Lesion load is a common biomarker in multiple sclerosis, yet it has historically shown modest associations with clinical outcomes. Lesion count, which encapsulates the natural history of lesion formation and is thought to provide complementary information, is difficult to assess in patients with confluent (i.e. spatially overlapping) lesions. We introduce a statistical technique for cross-sectionally counting pathologically distinct lesions. Methods MRI is used to assess the probability of lesion at each location. The texture of this map is quantified using a novel technique, and clusters resembling the center of a lesion are counted. Results Validity was demonstrated by comparing the proposed count to a gold-standard count in 60 subjects observed longitudinally. The counts were highly correlated (r = .97, p < .001) and not significantly different (t59 = −0.83, p > .40). Reliability was determined using 14 scans of a clinically stable subject acquired at 7 sites, and variability of lesion count was equivalent to that of lesion load. Accounting for lesion load and age, lesion count was negatively associated (t58 = −2.73, p < .01) with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Average lesion size had a higher association with EDSS (r =.35, p < .01) than lesion load (r = .10, p > .40) or lesion count (r = −.12, p > .30) alone. Conclusion These findings demonstrate that it is possible to recover important aspects of the natural history of lesion formation without longitudinal data, and suggest that lesion size provides complementary information about disease. Grant Support The project described was supported in part by the NIH grants R01 NS085211, R21 NS093349, and R01 NS094456 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). The study was also supported by the Intramural Research Program of NINDS and the Race to Erase MS Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".