MAGNIMS consensus recommendations on the use of brain and spinal cord atrophy measures in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early evaluation of treatment response and prediction of disease evolution are key issues in the management of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). In the past 20 years, MRI has become the most useful paraclinical tool in both situations and is used clinically to assess the inflammatory component of the disease, particularly the presence and evolution of focal lesions - the pathological hallmark of MS. However, diffuse neurodegenerative processes that are at least partly independent of inflammatory mechanisms can develop early in people with MS and are closely related to disability. The effects of these neurodegenerative processes at a macroscopic level can be quantified by estimation of brain and spinal cord atrophy with MRI. MRI measurements of atrophy in MS have also been proposed as a complementary approach to lesion assessment to facilitate the prediction of clinical outcomes and to assess treatment responses. In this Consensus statement, the Magnetic Resonance Imaging in MS (MAGNIMS) study group critically review the application of brain and spinal cord atrophy in clinical practice in the management of MS, considering the role of atrophy measures in prognosis and treatment monitoring and the barriers to clinical use of these measures. On the basis of this review, the group makes consensus statements and recommendations for future research.
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 | 0.046 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
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".