Correlation of brain segmental volume changes with clinical parameters: a longitudinal study in multiple sclerosis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the cranial volume differences from 15 different parts in the follow-up of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients and correlate them with clinical parameters. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with RRMS were included in the study. Patients were grouped into two categories; low Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) (< 3; group 1), and moderate-high EDSS (≥ 3; group 2). Patients were evaluated with Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA), Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and calculated Annualized Relapse Rate (ARR) scores. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed with a 1.5T MRI device (Magnetom AERA, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) twice in a 1-year period. Volumetric analysis was performed by a free, automated, online MRI brain volumetry software. The differences in volumetric values between the two MRI scans were calculated and correlated with the demographic and clinical parameters of the patients. RESULTS: < 0.001). In addition, putaminal volume loss was related to a higher number of attacks. Besides, a negative relation between FSS with total amygdala volumes, a link between atrophy of globus pallidus and ARR, and BDI scores was found with the aid of network analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from a visual demonstration of volume loss, cranial MRI with volumetric analysis has a great potential for revealing covert links between segmental volume changes and clinical parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".