Neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) and free‐water imaging in Parkinsonism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) uses a three-compartment model to probe brain tissue microstructure, whereas free-water (FW) imaging models two-compartments. It is unknown if NODDI detects more disease-specific effects related to neurodegeneration in Parkinson's disease (PD) and atypical Parkinsonism. We acquired multi- and single-shell diffusion imaging at 3 Tesla across two sites. NODDI (using multi-shell; isotropic volume [Viso]; intracellular volume [Vic]; orientation dispersion [ODI]) and FW imaging (using single-shell; FW; free-water corrected fractional anisotropy [FAt]) were compared with 44 PD, 21 multiple system atrophy Parkinsonian variant (MSAp), 26 progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), and 24 healthy control subjects in the basal ganglia, midbrain/thalamus, cerebellum, and corpus callosum. There was elevated Viso in posterior substantia nigra across Parkinsonisms, and Viso, Vic, and ODI were altered in MSAp and PSP in the striatum, globus pallidus, midbrain, thalamus, cerebellum, and corpus callosum relative to controls. The mean effect size across regions for Viso was 0.163, ODI 0.131, Vic 0.122, FW 0.359, and FAt 0.125, with extracellular compartments having the greatest effect size. A key question addressed was if these techniques discriminate PD and atypical Parkinsonism. Both NODDI (AUC: 0.945) and FW imaging (AUC: 0.969) had high accuracy, with no significant difference between models. This study provides new evidence that NODDI and FW imaging offer similar discriminability between PD and atypical Parkinsonism, and FW had higher effect sizes for detecting Parkinsonism within regions across the basal ganglia and cerebellum.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".