The Canadian Dementia Imaging Protocol: Harmonization validity for morphometry measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The harmonized Canadian Dementia Imaging Protocol (CDIP) has been developed to suit the needs of a number of co-occurring Canadian studies collecting data on brain changes across adulthood and neurodegeneration. In this study, we verify the impact of CDIP parameters compliance on total brain volume variance using 86 scans of the same individual acquired on various scanners. Data included planned data collection acquired within the Consortium pour l'identification précoce de la maladie Alzheimer - Québec (CIMA-Q) and Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) studies, as well as opportunistic data collection from various protocols. For images acquired from Philips scanners, lower variance in brain volumes were observed when the stated CDIP resolution was set. For images acquired from GE scanners, lower variance in brain volumes were noticed when TE/TR values were within 5% of the CDIP protocol, compared to values farther from that criteria. Together, these results suggest that a harmonized protocol like the CDIP may help to reduce neuromorphometric measurement variability in multi-centric studies.
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 | 0.070 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".