MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brain volume loss in individuals over time: Source of variance and limits of detectability

2020· article· en· W3011340088 on OpenAlexafffund
Sridar Narayanan, Kunio Nakamura, Vladimir Fonov, Josefina Maranzano, Zografos Caramanos, Paul S. Giacomini, D. Louis Collins, Douglas L. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersNovartis Pharmaceuticals Canada
KeywordsVariance (accounting)Volume (thermodynamics)Brain sizeStatisticsPsychologyMathematicsMedicinePhysicsEconomicsMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Brain volume loss measured from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a marker of neurodegeneration and predictor of disability progression in MS, and is commonly used to assess drug efficacy at the group level in clinical trials. Whether measures of brain volume loss could be useful to help guide management of individual patients depends on the relative magnitude of the changes over a given interval to physiological and technical sources of variability. GOAL: To understand the relative contributions of neurodegeneration vs. physiological and technical sources of variability to measurements of brain volume loss in individuals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multiple T1-weighted 3D MPRAGE images were acquired from a healthy volunteer and MS patient over varying time intervals: 7 times on the first day (before breakfast at 7:30AM and then every 2 ​h for 12 ​h), each day for the next 6 working days, and 6 times over the remainder of the year, on 2 ​Siemens MRI scanners: 1.5T Sonata (S1) and 3.0T TIM Trio (S2). Scan-reposition-rescan data were acquired on S2 for daily, monthly and 1-year visits. Percent brain volume change (PBVC) was measured from baseline to each follow-up scan using FSL/SIENA. We estimated the effect of physiologic fluctuations on brain volume using linear regression of the PBVC values over hourly and daily intervals. The magnitude of the physiological effect was estimated by comparing the root-mean-square error (RMSE) of the regression of all the data points relative to the regression line, for the hourly scans vs the daily scans. Variance due to technical sources was assessed as the RMSE of the regression over time using the intracranial volume as a reference. RESULTS: The RMSE of PBVC over 12 ​h, for both scanners combined, ("Hours", 0.15%), was similar to the day-to-day variation over 1 week ("Days", 0.14%), and both were smaller than the RMS error over the year (0.21%). All of these variations, however, were smaller than the scan-reposition-rescan RMSE (0.32%). The variability of PBVC for the individual scanners followed the same trend. The standard error of the mean (SEM) for PBVC was 0.26 for S1, and 0.22 for S2. From these values, we computed the minimum detectable change (MDC) to be 0.7% on S1 and 0.6% on S2. The location of the brain along the z-axis of the magnet inversely correlated with brain volume change for hourly and daily brain volume fluctuations (p ​< ​0.01). CONCLUSION: Consistent diurnal brain volume fluctuations attributable to physiological shifts were not detectable in this small study. Technical sources of variation dominate measured changes in brain volume in individuals until the volume loss exceeds around 0.6-0.7%. Reliable interpretation of measured brain volume changes as pathological (greater than normal aging) in individuals over 1 year requires changes in excess of about 1.1% (depending on the scanner). Reliable brain atrophy detection in an individual may be feasible if the rate of brain volume loss is large, or if the measurement interval is sufficiently long.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.207
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.207
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207