Cortical lesion hotspots and association of subpial lesions with disability in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dramatic improvements in visualization of cortical (especially subpial) multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions allow assessment of impact on clinical course. Objective: Characterize cortical lesions by 7 tesla (T) T 2 * -/T 1 -weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); determine relationship with other MS pathology and contribution to disability. Methods: Sixty-four adults with MS (45 relapsing–remitting/19 progressive) underwent 3 T brain/spine MRI, 7 T brain MRI, and clinical testing. Results: Cortical lesions were found in 94% (progressive: median 56/range 2–203; relapsing–remitting: 15/0–168; p = 0.004). Lesion distribution across 50 cortical regions was nonuniform ( p = 0.006), with highest lesion burden in supplementary motor cortex and highest prevalence in superior frontal gyrus. Leukocortical and white matter lesion volumes were strongly correlated ( r = 0.58, p < 0.0001), while subpial and white matter lesion volumes were moderately correlated ( r = 0.30, p = 0.002). Leukocortical ( p = 0.02) but not subpial lesions ( p = 0.40) were correlated with paramagnetic rim lesions; both were correlated with spinal cord lesions ( p = 0.01). Cortical lesion volumes (total and subtypes) were correlated with expanded disability status scale, 25-foot timed walk, nine-hole peg test, and symbol digit modality test scores. Conclusion: Cortical lesions are highly prevalent and are associated with disability and progressive disease. Subpial lesion burden is not strongly correlated with white matter lesions, suggesting differences in inflammation and repair mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".