Texture Analysis to Detect Cerebral Degeneration in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence of cerebral degeneration is not apparent on routine brain MRI in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Texture analysis can detect change in images based on the statistical properties of voxel intensities. Our objective was to test the utility of texture analysis in detecting cerebral degeneration in ALS. A secondary objective was to determine whether the performance of texture analysis is dependent on image resolution. METHODS: High-resolution (0.5×0.5 mm2 in-plane) coronal T2-weighted MRI of the brain were acquired from 12 patients with ALS and 19 healthy controls on a 4.7 Tesla MRI system. Image data sets at lower resolutions were created by down-sampling to 1×1, 2×2, 3×3, and 4×4 mm2. Texture features were extracted from a slice encompassing the corticospinal tract at the different resolutions and tested for their discriminatory power and correlations with clinical measures. Subjects were also classified by visual assessment by expert reviewers. RESULTS: Texture features were different between ALS patients and healthy controls at 1×1, 2×2, and 3×3 mm2 resolutions. Texture features correlated with measures of upper motor neuron function and disability. Optimal classification performance was achieved when best-performing texture features were combined with visual assessment at 2×2 mm2 resolution (0.851 area under the curve, 83% sensitivity, 79% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: Texture analysis can detect subtle abnormalities in MRI of ALS patients. The clinical yield of the method is dependent on image resolution. Texture analysis holds promise as a potential source of neuroimaging biomarkers in ALS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".