MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224938342 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2022.787516

Modeling the Properties of White Matter Tracts Using Diffusion Tensor Imaging to Characterize Patterns of Injury in Aging and Neurodegenerative Disease

2022· article· en· W4224938342 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chun Yen Kok, Christine Lock, Ting Yao Ang, Nicole C. Keong

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Medical Research CouncilNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerBiogenBioClinicaF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMeso Scale DiagnosticsMedical Research CouncilEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsDiffusion MRIWhite matterVentriculomegalyTractographyAtlas (anatomy)Internal capsuleMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingNeuroscienceMedicinePsychologyRadiologyAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is a relatively novel magnetic resonance-based imaging methodology that can provide valuable insight into the microstructure of white matter tracts of the brain. In this paper, we evaluated the reliability and reproducibility of deriving a semi-automated pseudo-atlas DTI tractography method vs. standard atlas-based analysis alternatives, for use in clinical cohorts with neurodegeneration and ventriculomegaly. We showed that the semi-automated pseudo-atlas DTI tractography method was reliable and reproducible across different cohorts, generating 97.7% of all tracts. However, DTI metrics obtained from both methods were significantly different across the majority of cohorts and white matter tracts (p < 0.001). Despite this, we showed that both methods produced patterns of white matter injury that are consistent with findings reported in the literature and with DTI profiles generated from these methodologies. Scatter plots comparing DTI metrics obtained from each methodology showed that the pseudo-atlas method produced metrics that implied a more preserved neural structure compared to its counterpart. When comparing DTI metrics against a measure of ventriculomegaly (i.e., Evans’ Index), we showed that the standard atlas-based method was able to detect decreasing white matter integrity with increasing ventriculomegaly, while in contrast, metrics obtained using the pseudo-atlas method were sensitive for stretch or compression in the posterior limb of the internal capsule. Additionally, both methods were able to show an increase in white matter disruption with increasing ventriculomegaly, with the pseudo-atlas method showing less variability and more specificity to changes in white matter tracts near to the ventricles. In this study, we found that there was no true gold-standard for DTI methodologies or atlases. Whilst there was no congruence between absolute values from DTI metrics, differing DTI methodologies were still valid but must be appreciated to be variably sensitive to different changes within white matter injury occurring concurrently. By combining both atlas and pseudo-atlas based methodologies with DTI profiles, it was possible to navigate past such challenges to describe white matter injury changes in the context of confounders, such as neurodegenerative disease and ventricular enlargement, with transparency and consistency.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207