MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210865656 · doi:10.1002/jmri.28105

Left–Right Intensity Asymmetries Vary Depending on Scanner Model for <scp>FLAIR</scp> and <scp>T<sub>1</sub></scp> Weighted <scp>MRI</scp> Images

2022· article· en· W4210865656 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arvin Arani, Christopher G. Schwarz, Heather J. Wiste, Stephen D. Weigand, Petrice M. Cogswell, Matthew C. Murphy, Joshua D. Trzasko, Jeffrey L. Gunter, Matthew L. Senjem, Kiaran P. McGee, Yunhong Shu, Matt A. Bernstein, John Huston, Clifford R. Jack

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SEisaiPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationF. Hoffmann-La RocheBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineMedicineNeuroimagingArtifact (error)Nuclear magnetic resonanceRadiologyPhysicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Localized regions of left–right image intensity asymmetry (LRIA) were incidentally observed on T2‐weighted (T2‐w) and T1‐weighted (T1‐w) diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images. Suspicion of herpes encephalitis resulted in unnecessary follow‐up imaging. A nonbiological imaging artifact that can lead to diagnostic uncertainty was identified. Purpose To investigate whether systematic LRIA exist for a range of scanner models and to determine if LRIA can introduce diagnostic uncertainty. Study Type A retrospective study using the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) data base. Subjects One thousand seven hundred fifty‐three (median age: 72, males/females: 878/875) unique participants with longitudinal data were included. Field Strength 3T. Sequences T1‐w three‐dimensional inversion‐recovery spoiled gradient‐echo (IR‐SPGR) or magnetization‐prepared rapid gradient‐echo (MP‐RAGE) and T2‐w fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) long tau fast spin echo inversion recovery (LT‐FSE‐IR). Only General Electric, Philips, and Siemens' product sequences were used. Assessment LRIA was calculated as the left–right percent difference with respect to the mean intensity from automated anatomical atlas segmented regions. Three neuroradiologists with 37 (**), 32 (**), and 3 (**) years of experience rated the clinical impact of 30 T2‐w three‐dimensional FLAIR exams with LRIA to determine the diagnostic uncertainty. Statistical comparisons between retrospective intensity normalized T1m and original T1‐w images were made. Statistical Tests For each image type, a linear mixed effects model was fit using LRIA scores from all scanners, regions, and participants as the outcome and age and sex as predictors. Statistical significance was defined as having a P‐value <0.05. Results LRIA scores were significantly different from zero on most scanners. All clinicians were uncertain or recommended definite diagnostic follow‐up in 62.5% of cases with LRIA >10%. Individuals with acute brain pathology or focal neurologic deficits are not enrolled in ADNI; therefore, focal signal abnormalities were considered false positives. Data Conclusion LRIA is system specific, systematic, creates diagnostic uncertainty, and impacts IR‐SPGR, MP‐RAGE, and LT‐FSE‐IR product sequences. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 3

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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