Characterizing 1-year development of cervical cord atrophy across different MS phenotypes: A voxel-wise, multicentre analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Spatio-temporal evolution of cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis (MS) has not been investigated yet. Objective: To evaluate voxel-wise distribution and 1-year changes of cervical cord atrophy in a multicentre MS cohort. Methods: Baseline and 1-year 3D T1-weighted cervical cord scans and clinical evaluations of 54 healthy controls (HC) and 113 MS patients (14 clinically isolated syndromes (CIS), 77 relapsing-remitting (RR), 22 progressive (P)) were used to investigate voxel-wise cord volume loss in patients versus HC, 1-year volume changes and clinical correlations (SPM12). Results: MS patients exhibited baseline cord atrophy versus HC at anterior and posterior/lateral C1/C2 and C4–C6 ( p < 0.05, corrected). While CIS patients showed baseline volume increase at C4 versus HC ( p < 0.001, uncorrected), RRMS exhibited posterior/lateral C1/C2 atrophy versus CIS, and PMS showed widespread cord atrophy versus RRMS ( p < 0.05, corrected). At 1 year, 13 patients had clinically worsened. Cord atrophy progressed in MS, driven by RRMS, at posterior/lateral C2 and C3–C6 ( p < 0.05, corrected). CIS patients showed no volume changes, while PMS showed circumscribed atrophy progression. Baseline cord atrophy at posterior/lateral C1/C2 and C3–C6 correlated with concomitant and 1-year disability ( r = −0.40/–0.62, p < 0.05, corrected). Conclusions: Voxel-wise analysis characterized spinal cord neurodegeneration over 1 year across MS phenotypes and helped to explain baseline and 1-year disability.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".