Reliability of the <scp>MRI</scp>‐based Brain Atrophy and Lesion Index in the evaluation of whole‐brain structural health
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Brain Atrophy and Lesion Index ( BALI ), which evaluates several common aging‐related MRI changes in combination, has been validated as a feasible method to assess the status of structural brain health. Previous studies have been based primarily on older participants and high‐field MRI . Here, we tested the generalizability of the BALI by examining its measurement properties in a wide age range at both high and conventional MRI field strengths. Methods Subjects (n = 229) who had T2 WI at either 1.5T or 3.0T were grouped into younger (age ≤ 60 years) and older (age > 60 years) groups. Image evaluation and scoring were performed independently by two experienced neuroradiologists who have mastered the BALI method. Inter‐ and intrarater agreement rates were examined comparing age groups and field strengths. Results The intraclass correlation coefficient for the BALI total score was consistently high under each experimental condition (interrater ICC ≥ 0.92, 95% CI : 0.84‐0.96), with no statistical difference between age groups (Fisher Z = 1.43) or field strengths ( Z = 0.60). The reliability for BALI category subscores ranged between moderate and perfect (eg, 0.85 vs 0.57 for GA ), similar for both age groups and typically greater at 3.0T than at 1.5T. Conclusion The BALI based on T2 WI can be reliably applied to the evaluation of the whole‐brain health of both younger and older adults at both field strengths, even though high‐field MRI is preferable.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it