FLAIR2 post-processing: improving MS lesion detection in standard MS imaging protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Technical improvements in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition, such as higher field strength and optimized sequences, lead to better multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion detection and characterization. Multiplication of 3D-FLAIR with 3D-T2 sequences (FLAIR2) results in isovoxel images with increased contrast-to-noise ratio, increased white–gray-matter contrast, and improved MS lesion visualization without increasing MRI acquisition time. The current study aims to assess the potential of 3D-FLAIR2 in detecting cortical/leucocortical (LC), juxtacortical (JC), and white matter (WM) lesions. Objective To compare lesion detection of 3D-FLAIR2 with state-of-the-art 3D-T2-FLAIR and 3D-T2-weighted images. Methods We retrospectively analyzed MRI scans of thirteen MS patients, showing previously noted high cortical lesion load. Scans were acquired using a 3 T MRI scanner. WM, JC, and LC lesions were manually labeled and manually counted after randomization of 3D-T2, 3D-FLAIR, and 3D-FLAIR2 scans using the ITK-SNAP tool. Results LC lesion visibility was significantly improved by 3D-FLAIR2 in comparison to 3D-FLAIR (4 vs 1; p = 0.018) and 3D-T2 (4 vs 1; p = 0.007). Comparing LC lesion detection in 3D-FLAIR2 vs. 3D-FLAIR, 3D-FLAIR2 detected on average 3.2 more cortical lesions (95% CI − 9.1 to 2.8). Comparing against 3D-T2, 3D-FLAIR2 detected on average 3.7 more LC lesions (95% CI 3.3–10.7). Conclusions 3D-FLAIR2 is an easily applicable time-sparing MR post-processing method to improve cortical lesion detection. Larger sampled studies are warranted to validate the sensitivity and specificity of 3D-FLAIR2.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".