Role of artificial intelligence in MS clinical practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) and its subset, deep learning (DL), are branches of artificial intelligence (AI) showing promising findings in the medical field, especially when applied to imaging data. Given the substantial role of MRI in the diagnosis and management of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), this disease is an ideal candidate for the application of AI techniques. In this narrative review, we are going to discuss the potential applications of AI for MS clinical practice, together with their limitations. Among their several advantages, ML algorithms are able to automate repetitive tasks, to analyze more data in less time and to achieve higher accuracy and reproducibility than the human counterpart. To date, these algorithms have been applied to MS diagnosis, prognosis, disease and treatment monitoring. Other fields of application have been improvement of MRI protocols as well as automated lesion and tissue segmentation. However, several challenges remain, including a better understanding of the information selected by AI algorithms, appropriate multicenter and longitudinal validations of results and practical aspects regarding hardware and software integration. Finally, one cannot overemphasize the paramount importance of human supervision, in order to optimize the use and take full advantage of the potential of AI approaches.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it