MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MRI-based brain atrophy and lesion index assessment of whole-brain structural changes during aging

2018· article· en· W3031831967 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanyuan Shi, Zhihua Sun, Hui Guo, Xiaohui Yin, Xiaowei Song, Yunting Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua laonian yixue zazhi · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryAtrophyMagnetic resonance imagingBrain agingMedicineT2 weightedNuclear medicineLesionWhite matterHyperintensityRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To assess the value of brain atrophy and lesion index(BALI), based on magnetic resonance imaging(MRI), in the evaluation of brain aging. Methods 169 healthy older adults were divided into five age groups (40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80-89 years). MRI scans were evaluated by the 3.0T GE signa and the BALI rating schemes, based on the T1 weighted(T1WI), T2 weighted(T2WI), and T2 weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery(T2-FLAIR), and T2*weighted gradient-recalled echo(T2*GRE)images were recorded. Results Based on T1WI, T2WI, T2-FLAIR and T2*GRE, total scores of BALI increased with age, and showed significant differences between the five age groups(F=35.35, 42.87, 46.57, and 54.15, respectively; all P=0.000). In addition, BALI scores from each sequence were correlated with age(T1WI: r=0.71; T2WI: r=0.73; T2-FLAIR: r=0.73; T2*GRE: r=0.77; all P<0.01). Furthermore, T2*GRE was most sensitive to microbleeds and T2-FLAIR revealed a greater level of deep white matter(χ2=53.47, P=0.000)and periventricular lesions(χ2=29.93, P=0.000)than other sequences. Conclusions The T1WI, T2WI, T2-FLAIR and T2*GRE, BALI scores can be used to assess whole brain structural changes with aging and provide semi-quantitative indicators for the assessment of brain health. Key words: Magnetic resonance imaging; Brain injuries

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua laonian yixue zazhiSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207