A multicenter pilot study evaluating simplified central vein assessment for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The central vein sign (CVS) is a proposed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS); the optimal method for abbreviated CVS scoring is not yet established. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a simplified approach to CVS assessment in a multicenter study of patients being evaluated for suspected MS. METHODS: Adults referred for possible MS to 10 sites were recruited. A post-Gd 3D T2*-weighted MRI sequence (FLAIR*) was obtained in each subject. Trained raters at each site identified up to six CVS-positive lesions per FLAIR* scan. Diagnostic performance of CVS was evaluated for a diagnosis of MS which had been confirmed using the 2017 McDonald criteria at thresholds including three positive lesions (Select-3*) and six positive lesions (Select-6*). Inter-rater reliability assessments were performed. RESULTS: = 55, 71%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the simplified counting method was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73-0.93). Select-3* and Select-6* had sensitivity of 81% and 65% and specificity of 68% and 98%, respectively. Inter-rater agreement was 78% for Select-3* and 83% for Select-6*. CONCLUSION: A simplified method for CVS assessment in patients referred for suspected MS demonstrated good diagnostic performance and inter-rater agreement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".