Reduced total number of enlarged perivascular spaces in post-traumatic epilepsy patients with unilateral lesions – a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We investigated the value of automated enlarged perivascular spaces (ePVS) quantification to distinguish chronic traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with post-traumatic epilepsy (PTE + ) from chronic TBI patients without PTE (PTE − ) in a feasibility study. Methods Patients with and without PTE were recruited and underwent an MRI post-TBI. Multimodal auto identification of ePVS algorithm was applied to T1-weighted MRIs to segment ePVS. The total number of ePVS was calculated and corrected for white matter volume, and an asymmetry index (AI) derived. Results PTE was diagnosed in 7 out of the 99 participants (male=69) after a median time of less than one year since injury (range 10-22). Brain lesions were observed in all 7 PTE + cases (unilateral=4, 57%; bilateral=3, 43%) as compared to 40 PTE − cases (total 44%; unilateral=17, 42%; bilateral=23, 58%). There was a significant difference between PTE + (M=1.21e −4 , IQR [8.89e −5 ]) and PTE − cases (M=2.79e −4 , IQR [6.25e −5 ]) in total corrected numbers of ePVS in patients with unilateral lesions (p=0.024). No differences in AI, trauma severity and lesion volume were seen between groups. Conclusion This study has shown that automated quantification of ePVS is feasible and provided initial evidence that individuals with PTE with unilateral lesions may have fewer ePVS compared to TBI patients without epilepsy. Further studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to determine the value of ePVS quantification as a PTE-biomarker.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".