Cervical spinal cord MRI in ALS individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Disease tracking and prognostication of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) can be quite challenging in people living with ALS, due to the complexity of central nervous system disease biology . This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to summarize cervical spinal cord quantitative MRI (qMRI) biomarker changes in individuals with ALS. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched up to August 2023. The terms used were “ALS”, “cervical spinal cord”, “MRI”,“ diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)”, “ fractional anisotropy (FA)”, “ mean diffusivity (MD) ”,“ magnetization transfer ratio (MTR)”, “ cross-sectional area (CSA)”, “ radial diffusivity (RD) ”, and “ atrophy ”. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess study quality. We calculated the pooled: 1) Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs for comparative assessment of qMRI parameters in ALS individuals and the healthy population. 2) Estimate the mean of qMRI parameters for normative values in two groups by CMA software. Heterogeneity and publication bias were determined by the I-squared statistic and funnel plots. Results Thirty studies, with 1817 participants (35.9 % female) were included in this review, and 29 had a NOS ≥ 5 which indicates high-quality of data overall. The SMD analysis showed (a) significant decrease in CSA along the whole length of cervical cord (C1-C7) (p value < 0.0001), with a preferential thinning of the cervical enlargement region (C4-C6 region) (p value < 0.0001) (b) significant decrease in FA (p value < 0.0001), particularly FA left lateral corticospinal tract (p value < 0.0001) and (c) a significant increase in MD (p value < 0.0001) in ALS individuals compared to controls. The pooled analysis reveals that the mean (SD) values for ALS individuals versus controls for (a) CSA (in mm 2 ) were C1 [73.4 (0.75), 78.5 (0.67), 6.9 % difference]; C2 [70.6 (3.1), 71.5 (3.5), 1.2 % difference]; C3 [69.8(1.5), 74.9 (1.9), 7.3 % difference]; C4 [71.9 (1.8), 77.6 (2.8), 7.9 % difference]; C5 [71.8 (2.5), 79.5 (3.3), 10.7 % difference]; C6 [66.8 (2.7), 73.7 (3.7), 10.3 % difference]; C7 [56.7 (F2.2), 62.1 (2.5), 9.5 % difference]; (b) FA [0.54 (0.03), 0.56 (0.03)]; (c) MD[1.11 (0.18), 0.88(0)]; and (d) FA LLCST [ 0.65 (0.04), 0.77 (0.04)], respectively. The mean (SD) value of the MTR and RD for ALS individuals was 40.3 (2.3), and 0.70 (0.0). Conclusions qMRI metrics of spinal cord show discriminatory potential between ALS and healthy controls. The selective atrophy of the cervical enlargement (C4–C6) is replicable across multiple studies as seen in this metanalysis and hence is a potential imaging marker for quantifying and tracking lower motor neuron degeneration in ALS.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".