Exploring Mechanisms of Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Evolution Using Advanced MRI (I10.012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To use advanced Magnetic Resonance (MR) frequency shift imaging to learn about processes of multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion formation and evolution over the first 2 years after lesion appearance. Background: MS pathology includes focal lesions and diffuse damage involving both the gray and the normal appearing white matter. However, lesion count and volume estimates as provided by conventional MRI do not correlate with the clinical presentation of MS. Frequency shift imaging, a susceptibility-weighted imaging technique, provides very high-spatial resolution images with excellent signal-to-noise, which allow to monitor focal lesions and diffuse white matter changes. Methods: 38 patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) were enrolled in a randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind trial of Minocycline. 3T MRI was performed at 0,3,6,12 and 24 months. MR frequency shift maps were computed from the susceptibility-weighted scan. New FLAIR and Gadolinium-enhancing lesions were identified and their average MR frequency signal was calculated at each time point and compared to the frequency in normal appearing (NA) and diffusely abnormal (DA) WM. Results: 49 new-T2 and Gadolinium-enhancing lesions appeared over the course of the study. The MR frequency signal within lesions increased sharply at their time of appearance and remained elevated for at least one year. The signal within NAWM and DAWM regions remained constant over 1 year(p>0.4, freqNAWM=-0.72±0.14ppb,freqDAWM=-0.005±0.025ppb) and tended to increase in NAWM over 2 years(p=0.08). Conclusions: Increased MR frequency in acute lesions represents demyelination and the formation of myelin debris. This is supported by the persistent signal elevation which extends beyond the time course expected for resolution of inflammation associated edema. Susceptibility-based frequency shift imaging in this early CIS cohort is sensitive to detect ongoing changes in NAWM over two years. Formation and evolution of CIS lesions is similar to previous findings in MS lesions. Study supported by: Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".