Harmonizing brain magnetic resonance imaging methods for vascular contributions to neurodegeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many consequences of cerebrovascular disease are identifiable by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but variation in methods limits multicenter studies and pooling of data. The European Union Joint Program on Neurodegenerative Diseases (EU JPND) funded the HARmoNizing Brain Imaging MEthodS for VaScular Contributions to Neurodegeneration (HARNESS) initiative, with a focus on cerebral small vessel disease. METHODS: Surveys, teleconferences, and an in-person workshop were used to identify gaps in knowledge and to develop tools for harmonizing imaging and analysis. RESULTS: A framework for neuroimaging biomarker development was developed based on validating repeatability and reproducibility, biological principles, and feasibility of implementation. The status of current MRI biomarkers was reviewed. A website was created at www.harness-neuroimaging.org with acquisition protocols, a software database, rating scales and case report forms, and a deidentified MRI repository. CONCLUSIONS: The HARNESS initiative provides resources to reduce variability in measurement in MRI studies of cerebral small vessel disease.
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 | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".