Automatic measure and normalization of spinal cord cross-sectional area using the pontomedullary junction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord cross-sectional area (CSA) is a relevant biomarker to assess spinal cord atrophy in neurodegenerative diseases. However, the considerable inter-subject variability among healthy participants currently limits its usage. Previous studies explored factors contributing to the variability, yet the normalization models required manual intervention and used vertebral levels as a reference, which is an imprecise prediction of the spinal levels. In this study we implemented a method to measure CSA automatically from a spatial reference based on the central nervous system (the pontomedullary junction, PMJ), we investigated factors to explain variability, and developed normalization strategies on a large cohort (N = 804). Following automatic spinal cord segmentation, vertebral labeling and PMJ labeling, the spinal cord CSA was computed on T1w MRI scans from the UK Biobank database. The CSA was computed using two methods. For the first method, the CSA was computed at the level of the C2–C3 intervertebral disc. For the second method, the CSA was computed at 64 mm caudally from the PMJ, this distance corresponding to the average distance between the PMJ and the C2–C3 disc across all participants. The effect of various demographic and anatomical factors was explored, and a stepwise regression found significant predictors; the coefficients of the best fit model were used to normalize CSA. CSA measured at C2–C3 disc and using the PMJ differed significantly (paired t-test, p-value = 0.0002). The best normalization model included thalamus, brain volume, sex and the interaction between brain volume and sex. The coefficient of variation went down for PMJ CSA from 10.09 (without normalization) to 8.59%, a reduction of 14.85%. For CSA at C2–C3, it went down from 9.96 to 8.42%, a reduction of 15.13 %. This study introduces an end-to-end automatic pipeline to measure and normalize cord CSA from a neurological reference. This approach requires further validation to assess atrophy in longitudinal studies. The inter-subject variability of CSA can be partly accounted for by demographics and anatomical factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".