Reproducibility of Brain Volume Changes in Longitudinal Voxel-Based Morphometry Between Non-Accelerated and Accelerated Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scan acceleration techniques, such as parallel imaging, can reduce scan times, but reliability is essential to implement these techniques in neuroimaging. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reproducibility of the longitudinal changes in brain morphology determined by longitudinal voxel-based morphometry (VBM) between non-accelerated and accelerated magnetic resonance images (MRI) in normal aging, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) 2 database, comprising subjects who underwent non-accelerated and accelerated structural T1-weighted MRI at screening and at a 2-year follow-up on 3.0 T Philips scanners, we examined the reproducibility of longitudinal gray matter volume changes determined by longitudinal VBM processing between non-accelerated and accelerated imaging in 50 healthy elderly subjects, 54 MCI patients, and eight AD patients. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) maps differed among the three groups. The mean ICC was 0.72 overall (healthy elderly, 0.63; MCI, 0.75; AD, 0.63), and the ICC was good to excellent (0.6-1.0) for 81.4%of voxels (healthy elderly, 64.8%; MCI, 85.0%; AD, 65.0%). The differences in image quality (head motion) were not significant (Kruskal-Wallis test, p = 0.18) and the within-subject standard deviations of longitudinal gray matter volume changes were similar among the groups. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the reproducibility of longitudinal gray matter volume changes determined by VBM between non-accelerated and accelerated MRI is good to excellent for many regions but may vary between diseases and regions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".