Cervical Spinal Cord Atrophy can be Accurately Quantified Using Head Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Spinal cord atrophy provides a clinically relevant metric for monitoring MS. However, the spinal cord is imaged far less frequently than brain due to artefacts and acquisition time, whereas MRI of the brain is routinely performed. Objective To validate spinal cord cross-sectional area measurements from routine 3DT1 whole-brain MRI versus those from dedicated cord MRI in healthy controls and people with MS. Methods We calculated cross-sectional area at C1 and C2/3 using T2*-weighted spinal cord images and 3DT1 brain images, for 28 healthy controls and 73 people with MS. Correlations for both groups were assessed between: (1) C1 and C2/3 using cord images; (2) C1 from brain and C1 from cord; and (3) C1 from brain and C2/3 from cord. Results and Conclusion C1 and C2/3 from cord were strongly correlated in controls ( r = 0.94, p<0.0001) and MS ( r = 0.85, p<0.0001). There was strong agreement between C1 from brain and C2/3 from cord in controls ( r = 0.84, p<0.0001) and MS ( r = 0.81, p<0.0001). This supports the use of C1 cross-sectional area calculated from brain imaging as a surrogate for the traditional C2/3 cross-sectional area measure for spinal cord atrophy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".