Deep grey matter injury in multiple sclerosis: a NAIMS consensus statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although multiple sclerosis has traditionally been considered a white matter disease, extensive research documents the presence and importance of grey matter injury including cortical and deep regions. The deep grey matter exhibits a broad range of pathology and is uniquely suited to study the mechanisms and clinical relevance of tissue injury in multiple sclerosis using magnetic resonance techniques. Deep grey matter injury has been associated with clinical and cognitive disability. Recently, MRI characterization of deep grey matter properties, such as thalamic volume, have been tested as potential clinical trial end points associated with neurodegenerative aspects of multiple sclerosis. Given this emerging area of interest and its potential clinical trial relevance, the North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (NAIMS) Cooperative held a workshop and reached consensus on imaging topics related to deep grey matter. Herein, we review current knowledge regarding deep grey matter injury in multiple sclerosis from an imaging perspective, including insights from histopathology, image acquisition and post-processing for deep grey matter. We discuss the clinical relevance of deep grey matter injury and specific regions of interest within the deep grey matter. We highlight unanswered questions and propose future directions, with the aim of focusing research priorities towards better methods, analysis, and interpretation of results.
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 | 0.075 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".