The spatio-temporal relationship between white matter lesion volume changes and brain atrophy in clinically isolated syndrome and early multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: White matter lesions and brain atrophy are both present early in multiple sclerosis. However, the spatio-temporal relationship between atrophy and lesion processes remains unclear. METHODS: Yearly magnetic resonance images were analyzed in 392 patients with clinically isolated syndrome from the 5-year REFLEX/REFLEXION studies. Patients received early treatment (from baseline; N = 262) or delayed treatment (from month-24; N = 130) with subcutaneous interferon beta-1a. Global and central atrophy were assessed using FSL-SIENA to provide yearly percentage volume change of brain and ventricles, respectively. Yearly total lesion volume change was calculated by subtracting the sum of the negative lesion volume change (disappearing + shrinking) from the positive lesion volume change (new + enlarging) for each yearly interval, as determined by an in-house developed semi-automated method. Using linear mixed models, during the period where patients had received ≥1 year of treatment, we investigated whether total lesion volume change was associated with percentage brain volume change or percentage ventricular volume change in the next year, and vice versa. RESULTS: Higher total lesion volume change was related to significantly faster global atrophy (percentage brain volume change) in the next year (B = - 0.113, SE = 0.022, p < 0.001). In patients receiving early treatment only, total lesion volume change was also associated with percentage ventricular volume change in the next year (B = 1.348, SE = 0.181, p < 0.001). Voxel-wise analyses showed that in patients receiving early treatment, higher total lesion volume change in years 2, 3, and 4 was related to faster atrophy in the next year, and in year 4 this relationship was stronger in patients receiving delayed treatment. Interestingly, faster atrophy was related to higher total lesion volume change in the next year (percentage brain volume change: B = - 0.136, SE = 0.062, p = 0.028; percentage ventricular volume change: B = 0.028, SE = 0.008, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher lesion volume changes were associated with faster atrophy in the next year. Interestingly, there was also an association between faster atrophy and higher lesion volume changes in the next year.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".