Automated White Matter Hyperintensity Segmentation Using Bayesian Model Selection: Assessment and Correlations with Cognitive Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate, automated white matter hyperintensity (WMH) segmentations are needed for large-scale studies to understand contributions of WMH to neurological diseases. We evaluated Bayesian Model Selection (BaMoS), a hierarchical fully-unsupervised model selection framework for WMH segmentation. We compared BaMoS segmentations to semi-automated segmentations, and assessed whether they predicted longitudinal cognitive change in control, early Mild Cognitive Impairment (EMCI), late Mild Cognitive Impairment (LMCI), subjective/significant memory concern (SMC) and Alzheimer's (AD) participants. Data were downloaded from the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Magnetic resonance images from 30 control and 30 AD participants were selected to incorporate multiple scanners, and were semi-automatically segmented by 4 raters and BaMoS. Segmentations were assessed using volume correlation, Dice score, and other spatial metrics. Linear mixed-effect models were fitted to 180 control, 107 SMC, 320 EMCI, 171 LMCI and 151 AD participants separately in each group, with the outcomes being cognitive change (e.g. mini-mental state examination; MMSE), and BaMoS WMH, age, sex, race and education used as predictors. There was a high level of agreement between BaMoS' WMH segmentation volumes and a consensus of rater segmentations, with a median Dice score of 0.74 and correlation coefficient of 0.96. BaMoS WMH predicted cognitive change in: control, EMCI, and SMC groups using MMSE; LMCI using clinical dementia rating scale; and EMCI using Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (p < 0.05, all tests). BaMoS compares well to semi-automated segmentation, is robust to different WMH loads and scanners, and can generate volumes which predict decline. BaMoS can be applicable to further large-scale 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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".