MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409974514 · doi:10.1007/s12311-025-01842-x

Current and future applications of brain magnetic resonance imaging in ARSACS

2025· review· en· W4409974514 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alessandra Scaravilli, Davide Negroni, C. Senatore, Filippo M. Santorelli, Sirio Cocozza

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cerebellum · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Napoli Federico II
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceMedicineNeuroimagingBiomarkerNeurologyPsychologyRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a tool with an unquestionable role in the study of neurodegenerative disorders, both for diagnostic purposes and for its ability of providing imaging-derived biomarkers with a growing central role as reliable outcomes in clinical trials. This is even more relevant when dealing with rare disorders such as the Autosomal Recessive Spastic Ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS), in which the search of diagnostic and prognostic biomarker is crucial. Due to the rarity of this condition, a comprehensive knowledge of MRI signs observed in ARSACS is lacking. Furthermore, many domains remain still unexplored in ARSACS, especially with reference to the application of advanced imaging techniques that could shed light on the pathophysiological mechanisms of brain damage in this disorder. In this review, after a brief introduction on the major conventional and advanced MRI techniques that can used for diagnostic and research purposes, we present current neuroradiological knowledge in ARSACS. Having discussed strength and weak points of conventional and advanced imaging findings, we also suggest possible future research in this neurologically complex clinical condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe CerebellumSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207