The Canadian Dementia Imaging Protocol: Harmonizing National Cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Harmonized protocols to collect imaging data must be devised, employed, and maintained in multicentric studies to reduce interscanner variability in subsequent analyses. PURPOSE: To present a standardized protocol for multicentric research on dementia linked to neurodegeneration in aging, harmonized on all three major vendor platforms. The protocol includes a common procedure for qualification, quality control, and quality assurance and feasibility in large-scale studies. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: The study involved a geometric phantom, a single individual volunteer, and 143 cognitively healthy, mild cognitively impaired, and Alzheimer's disease participants in a large-scale, multicentric study. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: w-FLAIR, diffusion, and BOLD resting state acquisitions. ASSESSMENT: Measures included signal- and contrast-to-noise ratios (SNR and CNR, respectively), total brain volumes, and total scan time. STATISTICAL TESTS: SNR, CNR, and scan time were compared between scanner vendors using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests, while brain volumes were tested using linear mixed models. RESULTS: w CNR was higher in subcortical regions for Siemens (P < 0.001), while Philips had higher cortical CNR (P = 0.044). No significant difference in brain volumes was observed between vendors (P = 0.310/0.582/0.055). The average scan time was 41.0 minutes (SD: 2.8) and was not significantly different between sites (P = 0.071) and cognitive groups (P = 0.853). DATA CONCLUSION: The harmonized Canadian Dementia Imaging Protocol suits the needs of studies that need to ensure quality MRI data acquisition for the measurement of brain changes across adulthood, due to aging, neurodegeneration, and other etiologies. A detailed description, exam cards, and operators' manual are freely available at the following site: www.cdip-pcid.ca. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:456-465.
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 | 0.063 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
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".