Detectability and accuracy of computational measurements of in-silico and physical representations of enlarged perivascular spaces from magnetic resonance images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) visible perivascular spaces (PVS) have been associated with age, decline in cognitive abilities, interrupted sleep, and markers of small vessel disease. But the limits of validity of their quantification have not been established. NEW METHOD: We use a purpose-built digital reference object to construct an in-silico phantom for addressing this need, and validate it using a physical phantom. We use cylinders of different sizes as models for PVS. We also evaluate the influence of 'PVS' orientation, and different sets of parameters of the two vesselness filters that have been used for enhancing tubular structures, namely Frangi and RORPO filters, in the measurements' accuracy. RESULTS: PVS measurements in MRI are only a proxy of their true dimensions, as the boundaries of their representation are consistently overestimated. The success in the use of the Frangi filter relies on a careful tuning of several parameters. Alpha= 0.5, beta= 0.5 and c= 500 yielded the best results. RORPO does not have these requirements and allows detecting smaller cylinders in their entirety more consistently in the absence of noise and confounding artefacts. The Frangi filter seems to be best suited for voxel sizes equal or larger than 0.4 mm-isotropic and cylinders larger than 1 mm diameter and 2 mm length. 'PVS' orientation did not affect measurements in data with isotropic voxels. COMPARISON WITH EXISTENT METHODS: Does not apply. CONCLUSIONS: The in-silico and physical phantoms presented are useful for establishing the validity of quantification methods of tubular small structures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".