MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220742845 · doi:10.1002/jmri.28172

Longitudinal Assessment of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion <scp>Diffusion‐Weighted MRI</scp> Metrics in Cognitive Decline

2022· article· en· W4220742845 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maurizio Bergamino, Anna Burke, Leslie C. Baxter, Richard J. Caselli, Marwan N. Sabbagh, Joshua S. Talboom, Matthew J. Huentelman, Ashley M. Stokes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBarrow Neurological Foundation
KeywordsIntravoxel incoherent motionDiffusion MRIMedicineEffective diffusion coefficientNuclear medicineCognitive declinePerfusionMagnetic resonance imagingBonferroni correctionInternal medicineRadiologyMathematicsDementiaStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Advanced diffusion‐based MRI biomarkers may provide insight into microstructural and perfusion changes associated with neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Purpose To assess longitudinal microstructural and perfusion changes using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion‐weighted imaging (IVIM‐DWI) parameters in cognitively impaired (CI) and healthy control (HC) groups. Study Type Prospective/longitudinal. Population Twelve CI patients (75% female) and 13 HC subjects (69% female). Field Strength/Sequence 3 T; Spin‐Echo‐IVIM‐DWI. Assessment Two MRI scans were performed with a 12‐month interval. ADC and IVIM‐DWI metrics (diffusion coefficient [D] and perfusion fraction [f]) were generated from monoexponential and biexponential fits, respectively. Additionally, voxel‐based correlations were evaluated between change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (ΔMoCA) and baseline imaging parameters. Statistical Tests Analysis of covariance with sex and age as covariates was performed for main effects of group and time (false discovery rate [FDR] corrected) with post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni correction. Partial‐η2 and Hedges' g were used for effect‐size analysis. Spearman's correlations (FDR corrected) were used for the relationship between ΔMoCA score and imaging. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Significant differences were found for the main effects of group (HC vs. CI) and time. For group effects, higher ADC, IVIM‐D, and IVIM‐f were observed in the CI group compared to HC (ADC: 1.23 ± 0.08.10−3 vs. 1.09 ± 0.07.10−3 mm2/sec; IVIM‐D: 0.82 ± 0.01.10−3 vs. 0.73 ± 0.01.10−3 mm2/sec; and IVIM‐f: 0.317 ± 0.008 vs. 0.253 ± 0.009). Significantly higher ADC, IVIM‐D, and IVIM‐f values were observed in the CI group after 12 months (ADC: 1.45 ± 0.05.10−3 vs. 1.50 ± 0.07.10−3 mm2/sec; IVIM‐D: 0.87 ± 0.01.10−3 vs. 0.94 ± 0.02.10−3 mm2/sec; and IVIM‐f: 0.303 ± 0.007 vs. 0.332 ± 0.008), but not in the HC group at large effect size. ADC, IVIM‐D, and IVIM‐f negatively correlated with ΔMoCA score (ρ = −0.49, −0.51, and −0.50, respectively). Data Conclusion These findings demonstrate that longitudinal differences between CI and HC cohorts can be measured using IVIM‐based metrics. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 2

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207