Reproducibility of cerebellar involvement as quantified by consensus structural MRI biomarkers in advanced essential tremor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essential tremor (ET) is the most prevalent movement disorder with poorly understood etiology. Some neuroimaging studies report cerebellar involvement whereas others do not. This discrepancy may stem from underpowered studies, differences in statistical modeling or variation in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition and processing. To resolve this, we investigated the cerebellar structural differences using a local advanced ET dataset augmented by matched controls from PPMI and ADNI. We tested the hypothesis of cerebellar involvement using three neuroimaging biomarkers: VBM, gray/white matter volumetry and lobular volumetry. Furthermore, we assessed the impacts of statistical models and segmentation pipelines on results. Results indicate that the detected cerebellar structural changes vary with methodology. Significant reduction of right cerebellar gray matter and increase of the left cerebellar white matter were the only two biomarkers consistently identified by multiple methods. Results also show substantial volumetric overestimation from SUIT-based segmentation-partially explaining previous literature discrepancies. This study suggests that current estimation of cerebellar involvement in ET may be overemphasized in MRI studies and highlights the importance of methods sensitivity analysis on results interpretation. ET datasets with large sample size and replication studies are required to improve our understanding of regional specificity of cerebellum involvement in ET. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 21 March 2022. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19697776 .
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 | 0.025 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".