MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220754111 · doi:10.1002/jmri.28152

Pulmonary<scp>MRI</scp>and Cluster Analysis Help Identify Novel Asthma Phenotypes

2022· article· en· W4220754111 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachel L. Eddy, Marrissa J. McIntosh, Alexander M. Matheson, David G. McCormack, Christopher Licskai, Grace Párraga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern UniversitySt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicineSpirometryAsthmaBonferroni correctionPlethysmographUnivariate analysisCOPDAnalysis of varianceAir trappingInternal medicineAirwayLung volumesNuclear medicineRadiologyMultivariate analysisLungAnesthesiaStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Outside eosinophilia, current clinical asthma phenotypes do not show strong relationships with disease pathogenesis or treatment responses. While chest x‐ray computed tomography (CT) phenotypes have previously been explored, functional MRI measurements provide complementary phenotypic information. Purpose To derive novel data‐driven asthma phenotypic clusters using functional MRI airway biomarkers that better describe airway pathologies in patients. Study Type Retrospective. Population A total of 45 patients with asthma who underwent post‐bronchodilator129Xe MRI, volume‐matched CT, spirometry and plethysmography within a 90‐minute visit. Field Strength/Sequence Three‐dimensional gradient‐recalled echo129Xe ventilation sequence at 3 T. Assessment We measured MRI ventilation defect percent (VDP), CT airway wall‐area percent (WA%), wall‐thickness (WT, WT* [*normalized for age/sex/height]), lumen‐area (LA), lumen‐diameter (D, D*) and total airway count (TAC). Univariate relationships were utilized to select variables for k‐means cluster analysis and phenotypic subgroup generation. Spirometry and plethysmography measurements were compared across imaging‐based clusters. Statistical Tests Spearman correlation (ρ), one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal–Wallis tests with post hoc Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, significance level 0.05. Results Based on limited common variance (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin‐measure = 0.44), four unique clusters were generated using MRI VDP, TAC, WT* and D* (52 ± 14 years, 27 female). Imaging measurements were significantly different across clusters as was the forced expiratory volume in 1‐second (FEV1%pred), residual volume/total lung capacity and airways resistance. Asthma‐control (P = 0.9), quality‐of‐life scores (P = 0.7) and the proportions of severe‐asthma (P = 0.4) were not significantly different. Cluster1 (n = 15/8 female) reflected mildly abnormal CT airway measurements and FEV1with moderately abnormal VDP. Cluster2 (n = 12/12 female) reflected moderately abnormal TAC, WT and FEV1. In Cluster3 and Cluster4 (n = 14/6 female,n = 4/1 female, respectively), there was severely reduced TAC, D and FEV1, but Cluster4 also had significantly worse, severely abnormal VDP (7 ± 5% vs. 41 ± 12%). Data Conclusion We generated four proof‐of‐concept MRI‐derived clusters of asthma with distinct structure–function pathologies. Cluster analysis of asthma using129Xe MRI in combination with CT biomarkers is feasible and may challenge currently used paradigms for asthma phenotyping and treatment decisions. Evidence Level 3 Technical Efficacy Stage

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207