Quantitative neuroimaging measures of myelin in the healthy brain and in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques have been developed as imaging biomarkers, aiming to improve the specificity of MRI to underlying pathology compared to conventional weighted MRI. For assessing the integrity of white matter (WM), myelin, in particular, several techniques have been proposed and investigated individually. However, comparisons between these methods are lacking. In this study, we compared four established myelin‐sensitive MRI techniques in 56 patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) and 38 healthy controls. We used T2‐relaxation with combined GRadient And Spin Echoes (GRASE) to measure myelin water fraction (MWF‐G), multi‐component driven equilibrium single pulse observation of T 1 and T 2 (mcDESPOT) to measure MWF‐D, magnetization‐transfer imaging to measure magnetization‐transfer ratio (MTR), and T 1 relaxation to measure quantitative T 1 (qT 1 ). Using voxelwise Spearman correlations, we tested the correspondence of methods throughout the brain. All four methods showed associations that varied across tissue types; the highest correlations were found between MWF‐D and qT 1 (median ρ across tissue classes 0.8) and MWF‐G and MWF‐D (median ρ = 0.59). In eight WM tracts, all measures showed differences ( p < 0.05) between MS normal‐appearing WM and healthy control WM, with qT1 showing the highest number of different regions (8), followed by MWF‐D and MTR (6), and MWF‐G ( n = 4). Comparing the methods in terms of their statistical sensitivity to MS lesions in WM, MWF‐D demonstrated the best accuracy ( p < 0.05, after multiple comparison correction). To aid future power analysis, we provide the average and standard deviation volumes of the four techniques, estimated from the healthy control sample.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".