Whole Brain 3D T1 Mapping in Multiple Sclerosis Using Standard Clinical Images Compared to MP2RAGE and MR Fingerprinting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative T1 and T2 mapping is a useful tool to assess properties of healthy and diseased tissues. However, clinical diagnostic imaging remains dominated by relaxation-weighted imaging without direct collection of relaxation maps. Dedicated research sequences such as MR fingerprinting can save time and improve resolution over classical gold standard quantitative MRI (qMRI) methods, although they are not widely adopted in clinical studies. We investigate the use of clinical sequences in conjunction with prior knowledge provided by machine learning to elucidate T1 maps of brain in routine imaging studies without the need for specialized sequences. A classification learner was trained on T1w (magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo [MPRAGE]) and T2w (fluid-attenuated inversion recovery [FLAIR]) data (2.6 million voxels) from multiple sclerosis (MS) patients at 3T, compared to gold standard inversion recovery fast spin echo T1 maps in five healthy subjects, and tested on eight MS patients. In the MS patient test, the results of the machine learner-produced T1 maps were compared to MP2RAGE and MR fingerprinting T1 maps in seven tissue regions of the brain: cortical grey matter, white matter, cerebrospinal fluid, caudate, putamen and globus pallidus. Additionally, T1s in lesion-segmented tissue was compared using the three different methods. The machine learner (ML) method had excellent agreement with MP2RAGE, with all average tissue deviations less than 3.2%, with T1 lesion variation of 0.1%-5.3% across the eight patients. The machine learning method provides a valuable and accurate estimation of T1 values in the human brain while using data from standard clinical sequences and allowing retrospective reconstruction from past studies without the need for new quantitative techniques.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".