MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289745675 · doi:10.1016/j.mri.2022.07.016

Assessment of perivascular space filtering methods using a three-dimensional computational model

2022· article· en· W4289745675 on OpenAlexafffund
José Bernal, María Valdés Hernández, Javier Escudero, Roberto Duarte, Lucia Ballerini, Mark E. Bastin, Ian J. Deary, Michael J. Thrippleton, Rhian M. Touyz, Joanna M. Wardlaw

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilUK Dementia Research InstituteAlzheimer’s Research UKFondation LeducqAge UKAlzheimer's SocietyWeston Brain InstituteBritish Heart FoundationMrs Gladys Row Fogo Charitable Trust
KeywordsComputer scienceVoxelArtificial intelligenceSegmentationMagnetic resonance imagingPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineComputer visionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing interest surrounds the assessment of perivascular spaces (PVS) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and their validation as a clinical biomarker of adverse brain health. Nonetheless, the limits of validity of current state-of-the-art segmentation methods are still unclear. Here, we propose an open-source three-dimensional computational framework comprising 3D digital reference objects and evaluate the performance of three PVS filtering methods under various spatiotemporal imaging considerations (including sampling, motion artefacts, and Rician noise). Specifically, we study the performance of the Frangi, Jerman and RORPO filters in enhancing PVS-like structures to facilitate segmentation. Our findings were three-fold. First, as long as voxels are isotropic, RORPO outperforms the other two filters, regardless of imaging quality. Unlike the Frangi and Jerman filters, RORPO's performance does not deteriorate as PVS volume increases. Second, the performance of all "vesselness" filters is heavily influenced by imaging quality, with sampling and motion artefacts being the most damaging for these types of analyses. Third, none of the filters can distinguish PVS from other hyperintense structures (e.g. white matter hyperintensities, stroke lesions, or lacunes) effectively, the area under precision-recall curve dropped substantially (Frangi: from 94.21 [IQR 91.60, 96.16] to 43.76 [IQR 25.19, 63.38]; Jerman: from 94.51 [IQR 91.90, 95.37] to 58.00 [IQR 35.68, 64.87]; RORPO: from 98.72 [IQR 95.37, 98.96] to 71.87 [IQR 57.21, 76.63] without and with other hyperintense structures, respectively). The use of our computational model enables comparing segmentation methods and identifying their advantages and disadvantages, thereby providing means for testing and optimising pipelines for ongoing and future studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207