Brain Maturation Patterns on Normalized FLAIR MR Imaging in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:</h3> Signal analysis of FLAIR sequences is gaining momentum for studying neurodevelopment and brain maturation, but FLAIR intensity varies across scanners and needs to be normalized. This study aimed to establish normative values for standardized FLAIR intensity in the pediatric brain. <h3>MATERIALS AND METHODS:</h3> A new automated algorithm for signal normalization was used to standardize FLAIR intensity across scanners and subjects. Mean intensity was extracted from GM, WM, deep GM, and cortical GM regions. Regression curves were fitted across the pediatric age range, and ANOVA was used to investigate intensity differences across age groups. Correlations between intensity and regional volume were also examined. <h3>RESULTS:</h3> We analyzed 429 pediatric FLAIR sequences in children 2–19 years of age with a median age of 11.2 years, including 199 males and 230 females. WM intensity had a parabolic relationship with age, with significant differences between various age groups (<i>P </i>< .05). GM and cortical GM intensity increased over the pediatric age range, with significant differences between early childhood and adolescence (<i>P </i>< .05). There were no significant relationships between volume and intensity in early childhood, while there were significant positive and negative correlations (<i>P </i>< .05) in WM and GM, respectively, for increasing age groups. Only the oldest age group showed significant differences between males and females (<i>P </i>< .05). <h3>CONCLUSIONS:</h3> This work presents a FLAIR intensity standardization algorithm to normalize intensity across large data sets, which allows FLAIR intensity to be used to compare regions and individuals as a surrogate measure of the developing pediatric brain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".