Diagnóstico por imagen de la artritis reumatoide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an improved image analysis pipeline to detect the percent brain volume change (PBVC) using SIENA (Structural Image Evaluation, using Normalization, of Atrophy) in populations with Alzheimer's dementia. Our proposed approach uses the improved brain extraction mask from BEaST (Brain Extraction based on nonlocal Segmentation Technique) instead of the conventional BET (Brain Extraction Tool) for SIENA. We compared four varying options of BET as well as BEaST and applied these five methods to analyze scan-rescan MRIs in ADNI from 332 subjects, longitudinal ADNI MRIs from the same 332 subjects, their repeat scans over time, and OASIS longitudinal MRIs from 123 subjects. The results showed that BEaST brain masks were consistent in scan-rescan reproducibility. The cross-sectional scan-rescan error in the absolute percent brain volume difference measured by SIENA was smallest (p≤0.0187) with the proposed BEaST-SIENA. We evaluated the statistical power in terms of effect size, and the best performance was achieved with BEaST-SIENA (1.2789 for ADNI and 1.095 for OASIS). The absolute difference in PBVC between scan-dataset (volume change from baseline to year-1) and rescan-dataset (volume change from baseline repeat scan to year-1 repeat scan) was also the smallest with BEaST-SIENA compared to the BET-based SIENA and had the highest correlation when compared to the BET-based SIENA variants. In conclusion, our study shows that BEaST was robust in terms of reproducibility and consistency and that SIENA's reproducibility and statistical power are improved in multiple datasets when used in combination with BEaST.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".