Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of white matter signal abnormalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background White matter abnormalities (WMAs) pose a diagnostic challenge when trying to establish etiologic diagnoses. During childhood and adult years, genetic disorders, metabolic disorders and acquired conditions are included in differential diagnoses. To assist clinicians and radiologists, a structured algorithm using cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been recommended to aid in establishing working diagnoses that facilitate appropriate biochemical and genetic investigations. This retrospective pilot study investigated the validity and diagnostic utility of this algorithm when applied to white matter signal abnormalities (WMSAs) reported on imaging studies of patients seen in our clinics. Methods The MRI algorithm was applied to 31 patients selected from patients attending the neurometabolic/neurogenetic/metabolic/neurology clinics at a tertiary care hospital. These patients varied in age from 5 months to 79 years old, and were reported to have WMSAs on cranial MRI scans. Twenty-one patients had confirmed WMA diagnoses and 10 patients had non-specific WMA diagnoses (etiology unknown). Two radiologists, blinded to confirmed diagnoses, used clinical abstracts and the WMSAs present on patient MRI scans to classify possible WMA diagnoses utilizing the algorithm. Results The MRI algorithm displayed a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 30.0% and a positive predicted value of 74.1%. Cohen's kappa statistic for inter-radiologist agreement was 0.733, suggesting "good" agreement between radiologists. Conclusions Although a high diagnostic utility was not observed, results suggest that this MRI algorithm has promise as a clinical tool for clinicians and radiologists. We discuss the benefits and limitations of this approach.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".