Evaluation of cervical spinal cord atrophy using a modified SIENA approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord (SC) atrophy obtained from structural magnetic resonance imaging has gained relevance as an indicator of neurodegeneration in various neurological disorders. The common method to assess SC atrophy is by comparing numerical differences of the cross-sectional spinal cord area (CSA) between time points. However, this indirect approach leads to considerable variability in the obtained results. Studies showed that this limitation can be overcome by using a registration-based technique. The present study introduces the Structural Image Evaluation using Normalization of Atrophy on the Spinal Cord (SIENA-SC), which is an adapted version of the original SIENA method, designed to directly calculate the percentage of SC volume change over time from clinical brain MRI acquired with an extended field of view to cover the superior part of the cervical SC. In this work, we compared SIENA-SC with the Generalized Boundary Shift Integral (GBSI) and the CSA change. On a scan-rescan dataset, SIENA-SC was shown to have the lowest measurement error than the other two methods. When comparing a group of 190 Healthy Controls with a group of 65 Multiple Sclerosis patients, SIENA-SC provided significantly higher yearly rates of atrophy in patients than in controls and a lower sample size when measured for treatment effect sizes of 50%, 30% and 10%. Our findings indicate that SIENA-SC is a robust, reproducible, and sensitive approach for assessing longitudinal changes in spinal cord volume, providing neuroscientists with an accessible and automated tool able to reduce the need for manual intervention and minimize variability in measurements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".