Spatial distributions of white matter hyperintensities on brain MRI: A pooled analysis of individual participant data from 11 memory clinic cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The spatial distribution of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) on MRI is often considered in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with cognitive problems. In some patients, clinicians may classify WMH patterns as "unusual", but this is largely based on expert opinion, because detailed quantitative information about WMH distribution frequencies in a memory clinic setting is lacking. Here we report voxel wise 3D WMH distribution frequencies in a large multicenter dataset and also aimed to identify individuals with unusual WMH patterns. METHODS: Individual participant data (N = 3525, including 777 participants with subjective cognitive decline, 1389 participants with mild cognitive impairment and 1359 patients with dementia) from eleven memory clinic cohorts, recruited through the Meta VCI Map Consortium, were used. WMH segmentations were provided by participating centers or performed in Utrecht and registered to the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI)-152 brain template for spatial normalization. To determine WMH distribution frequencies, we calculated WMH probability maps at voxel level. To identify individuals with unusual WMH patterns, region-of-interest (ROI) based WMH probability maps, rule-based scores, and a machine learning method (Local Outlier Factor (LOF)), were implemented. RESULTS: WMH occurred in 82% of voxels from the white matter template with large variation between subjects. Only a small proportion of the white matter (1.7%), mainly in the periventricular areas, was affected by WMH in at least 20% of participants. A large portion of the total white matter was affected infrequently. Nevertheless, 93.8% of individual participants had lesions in voxels that were affected in less than 2% of the population, mainly located in subcortical areas. Only the machine learning method effectively identified individuals with unusual patterns, in particular subjects with asymmetric WMH distribution or with WMH at relatively rarely affected locations despite common locations not being affected. DISCUSSION: Aggregating data from several memory clinic cohorts, we provide a detailed 3D map of WMH lesion distribution frequencies, that informs on common as well as rare localizations. The use of data-driven analysis with LOF can be used to identify unusual patterns, which might serve as an alert that rare causes of WMH should be considered.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".