Short-term repeatability and long-term reproducibility of quantitative MR imaging biomarkers in a single centre longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) can be defined as objective measures that are sensitive and specific to changes in tissue physiology. Provided the acquired QIBs are not affected by scanner changes, they could play an important role in disease diagnosis, prognosis, management, and treatment monitoring. The precision of selected QIBs was assessed from data collected on a 3-T scanner in four healthy participants over a 5-year period. Inevitable scanner changes and acquisition protocol revisions occurred during this time. Standard and custom processing pipelines were used to calculate regional brain volume, cortical thickness, T2, T2*, quantitative susceptibility, cerebral blood flow, axial, radial and mean diffusivity, peak width of skeletonized mean diffusivity, and fractional anisotropy from the acquired images. Coefficient of variation (CoV) and intra-class correlation (ICC) indices were determined in the short-term (i.e., repeatable over three acquisitions within 4 weeks) and in the long-term (i.e., reproducible over four acquisition sessions in 5 years). Precision indices varied based on acquisition technique, processing pipeline, and anatomical region. Good repeatability (average CoV=2.40% and ICC=0.78) and reproducibility (average CoV=8.86 % and ICC=0.72) were found over all QIBs. The best performance indices were obtained for diffusion derived biomarkers (CoV∼0.96% and ICCs=0.87); conversely, the poorest indices were found for the cerebral blood flow biomarker (CoV>10% and ICC<0.5). These results demonstrate that changes in protocol, along with hardware and software upgrades, did not affect the estimates of the selected biomarkers and their precision. Further characterization of the QIB is necessary to understand meaningful changes in the biomarkers in longitudinal studies of normal brain aging and translation to clinical research.
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 | 0.029 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".