Imaging outcome measures of neuroprotection and repair in MS: A consensus statement from NAIMS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo summarize current and emerging imaging techniques that can be used to assess neuroprotection and repair in multiple sclerosis (MS), and to provide a consensus opinion on the potential utility of each technique in clinical trial settings.MethodsClinicians and scientists with expertise in the use of MRI in MS convened in Toronto, Canada, in November 2016 at a North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (NAIMS) Cooperative workshop meeting. The discussion was compiled into a manuscript and circulated to all NAIMS members in attendance. Edits and feedback were incorporated until all authors were in agreement.ResultsA wide spectrum of imaging techniques and analysis methods in the context of specific study designs were discussed, with a focus on the utility and limitations of applying each technique to assess neuroprotection and repair. Techniques were discussed under specific themes, and included conventional imaging, magnetization transfer ratio, diffusion tensor imaging, susceptibility-weighted imaging, imaging cortical lesions, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, PET, advanced diffusion imaging, sodium imaging, multimodal techniques, imaging of special regions, statistical considerations, and study design.ConclusionsImaging biomarkers of neuroprotection and repair are an unmet need in MS. There are a number of promising techniques with different strengths and limitations, and selection of a specific technique will depend on a number of factors, notably the question the trial seeks to answer. Ongoing collaborative efforts will enable further refinement and improved methods to image the effect of novel therapeutic agents that exert benefit in MS predominately through neuroprotective and reparative mechanisms.
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 | 0.132 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".