Pooled analysis of multiple sclerosis findings on multisite 7 Tesla <scp>MRI</scp>: Protocol and initial observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although 7 T MRI research has contributed much to our understanding of multiple sclerosis (MS) pathology, most prior data has come from small, single-center studies with varying methods. In order to truly know if such findings have widespread applicability, multicenter methods and studies are needed. To address this, members of the North American Imaging in MS (NAIMS) Cooperative worked together to create a multicenter collaborative study of 7 T MRI in MS. In this manuscript, we describe the methods we have developed for the purpose of pooling together a large, retrospective dataset of 7 T MRIs acquired in multiple MS studies at five institutions. To date, this group has contributed five-hundred and twenty-eight 7 T MRI scans from 350 individuals with MS to a common data repository, with plans to continue to increase this sample size in the coming years. We have developed unified methods for image processing for data harmonization and lesion identification/segmentation. We report here our initial observations on intersite differences in acquisition, which includes site/device differences in brain coverage and image quality. We also report on the development of our methods and training of image evaluators, which resulted in median Dice Similarity Coefficients for trained raters' annotation of cortical and deep gray matter lesions, paramagnetic rim lesions, and meningeal enhancement between 0.73 and 0.82 compared to final consensus masks. We expect this publication to act as a resource for other investigators aiming to combine multicenter 7 T MRI datasets for the study of MS, in addition to providing a methodological reference for all future analysis projects to stem from the development of this dataset.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".