Imaging Mechanisms of Disease Progression in Multiple Sclerosis: Beyond Brain Atrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinicians involved with different aspects of the care of persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) and scientists with expertise on clinical and imaging techniques convened in Dallas, TX, USA on February 27, 2019 at a North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Cooperative workshop meeting. The aim of the workshop was to discuss cardinal pathobiological mechanisms implicated in the progression of MS and novel imaging techniques, beyond brain atrophy, to unravel these pathologies. Indeed, although brain volume assessment demonstrates changes linked to disease progression, identifying the biological mechanisms leading up to that volume loss are key for understanding disease mechanisms. To this end, the workshop focused on the application of advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging techniques to assess and measure disease progression in both the brain and the spinal cord. Clinical translation of quantitative MRI was recognized as of vital importance, although the need to maintain a relatively short acquisition time mandated by most radiology departments remains the major obstacle toward this effort. Regarding PET, the panel agreed upon its utility to identify ongoing pathological processes. However, due to costs, required expertise, and the use of ionizing radiation, PET was not considered to be a viable option for ongoing care of persons with MS. Collaborative efforts fostering robust study designs and imaging technique standardization across scanners and centers are needed to unravel disease mechanisms leading to progression and discovering medications halting neurodegeneration and/or promoting repair.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".