MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159770446 · doi:10.1002/jmri.27679

<scp>Cross‐Scanner</scp> Harmonization of <scp>Neuromelanin‐Sensitive MRI</scp> for Multisite Studies

2021· article· en· W3159770446 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Wengler, Clifford Cassidy, Marieke van der Pluijm, Jodi J. Weinstein, Anissa Abi‐Dargham, Elsmarieke van de Giessen, Guillermo Horga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthZonMw
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingSupport vector machineNuclear medicinePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMedicineComputer scienceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neuromelanin-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (NM-MRI) is a validated measure of neuromelanin concentration in the substantia nigra-ventral tegmental area (SN-VTA) complex and is a proxy measure of dopaminergic function with potential as a noninvasive biomarker. The development of generalizable biomarkers requires large-scale samples necessitating harmonization approaches to combine data collected across sites. PURPOSE: To develop a method to harmonize NM-MRI across scanners and sites. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: A total of 128 healthy subjects (18-73 years old; 45% female) from three sites and five MRI scanners. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0 T; NM-MRI two-dimensional gradient-recalled echo with magnetization-transfer pulse and three-dimensional T1-weighted images. ASSESSMENT: NM-MRI contrast (contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) maps were calculated and CNR values within the SN-VTA (defined previously by manual tracing on a standardized NM-MRI template) were determined before harmonization (raw CNR) and after ComBat harmonization (harmonized CNR). Scanner differences were assessed by calculating the classification accuracy of a support vector machine (SVM). To assess the effect of harmonization on biological variability, support vector regression (SVR) was used to predict age and the difference in goodness-of-fit (Δr) was calculated as the correlation (between actual and predicted ages) for the harmonized CNR minus the correlation for the raw CNR. STATISTICAL TESTS: Permutation tests were used to determine if SVM classification accuracy was above chance level and if SVR Δr was significant. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In the raw CNR, SVM MRI scanner classification was above chance level (accuracy = 86.5%). In the harmonized CNR, the accuracy of the SVM was at chance level (accuracy = 29.5%; P = 0.8542). There was no significant difference in age prediction using the raw or harmonized CNR (Δr = -0.06; P = 0.7304). DATA CONCLUSION: ComBat harmonization removes differences in SN-VTA CNR across scanners while preserving biologically meaningful variability associated with age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: 1.

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)0.002
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 score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207