Impact of follow ups, time interval and study duration in diffusion & myelin MRI clinical study in MS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is currently unknown how quantitative diffusion and myelin MRI designs affect the results of a longitudinal study. We used two independent datasets containing 6 monthly MRI measurements from 20 healthy controls and 20 relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RR-MS) patients. Six designs were tested, including 3 MRI acquisitions, either over 6 months or over a shorter study duration, with balanced (same interval) or unbalanced (different interval) time intervals between MRI acquisitions. First, we show that in RR-MS patients, the brain changes over time obtained with 3 MRI acquisitions were similar to those observed with 5 MRI acquisitions and that designs with an unbalanced time interval showed the highest similarity, regardless of study duration. No significant brain changes were found in the healthy controls over the same periods. Second, the study duration affects the sample size in the RR-MS dataset; a longer study requires more subjects and vice versa. Third, the number of follow-up acquisitions and study duration affect the sensitivity and specificity of the associations with clinical parameters, and these depend on the white matter bundle and MRI measure considered. Together, this suggests that the optimal design depends on the assumption of the dynamics of change in the target population and the accuracy required to capture these dynamics. Thus, this work provides a better understanding of key factors to consider in a longitudinal study and provides clues for better strategies in clinical trial design.
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 | 0.167 | 0.211 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".