MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410594449 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaf193

Sensitivity of diffusion tensor imaging to regional mixed cerebrovascular pathology

2025· article· en· W4410594449 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer K. Ferris, Julia Dahlby, Shie Rinat, Brian Greeley, Joel Ramirez, Sandra E. Black, Lara A. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreSimon Fraser University
FundersHealth ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsDiffusion MRISensitivity (control systems)MedicineDiffusionPathologyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Diffusion tensor imaging is a candidate biomarker in cerebrovascular disease. Yet, little is known about the sensitivity of diffusion tensor imaging to mixed forms of cerebrovascular pathology: stroke and white matter hyperintensities. We evaluated the sensitivity of diffusion tensor imaging to regional lesion load, considering both stroke and white matter hyperintensity lesions. 65 older adults and 39 individuals with chronic stroke underwent diffusion tensor imaging and comprehensive cerebrovascular lesion segmentation. We tested relationships between fractional anisotropy or mean diffusivity and cerebrovascular lesions with linear mixed effects regression. In older adults, tract microstructure related to white matter hyperintensity lesion load (fractional anisotropy: b = −0.003, P = 0.003; mean diffusivity: b = 0.071 × 10−4, P < 0.001). In individuals with chronic stroke, tract microstructure related to stroke lesion load (fractional anisotropy: b = −0.041, P < 0.001; mean diffusivity: b = 1.460 × 10−4, P < 0.001), with a significant interaction between stroke and white matter hyperintensity lesion load (fractional anisotropy: b = 0.019, P < 0.001; mean diffusivity: b = −0.727 × 10−4, P < 0.001). Among both groups, whole-brain normal appearing white matter microstructure did not relate to whole-brain lesion volumes. Our findings provide foundational evidence for the use and interpretation of diffusion tensor imaging as a biomarker in cerebrovascular disease.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207