Advanced MRI scan acquisition metrics improve baseline disease severity predictions compared to traditional community MRI scan metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM) is the functional derangement of the spinal cord and acts as one of the most common atraumatic spinal cord injuries. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are key in confirming the diagnosis of DCM in patients, though the utilization of higher fidelity magnetic resonance imaging scans and their integration into machine learning models remains largely unexplored. This study looks at the predictive ability of common community MRI scans in comparison to high fidelity scans in disease diagnosis. We hypothesize that the utilization of higher fidelity “advanced” MRI scans will increase the effectiveness of machine learning models predicting DCM severity. Through the utilization of Random Forest Classifiers, we have been able to predict disease severity with 41.8% accuracy in current community MRI scans and 63.9% in the advanced MRI scans. Furthermore, across the different predictive model variations tested, the advanced MRI scans consistently produced higher prediction accuracies compared to the community MRI counterparts. These results support our hypothesis and indicate that machine learning models have the potential to predict disease severity. However, neither performed well enough to be considered for use in clinical practice, indicating that the utilization of more sophisticated machine models may be required for these purposes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".