Enabling new insights from old scans by repurposing clinical MRI archives for multiple sclerosis research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers are vital for multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical research and trials but quantifying them requires multi-contrast protocols and limits the use of abundant single-contrast hospital archives. We developed MindGlide, a deep learning model to extract brain region and white matter lesion volumes from any single MRI contrast. We trained MindGlide on 4247 brain MRI scans from 2934 MS patients across 592 scanners, and externally validated it using 14,952 scans from 1,001 patients in two clinical trials (primary-progressive MS and secondary-progressive MS trials) and a routine-care MS dataset. The model outperformed two state-of-the-art models when tested against expert-labelled lesion volumes. In clinical trials, MindGlide detected treatment effects on T2-lesion accrual and cortical and deep grey matter volume loss. In routine-care data, T2-lesion volume increased with moderate-efficacy treatment but remained stable with high-efficacy treatment. MindGlide uniquely enables quantitative analysis of archival single-contrast MRIs, unlocking insights from untapped hospital datasets.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".