Adherence to MRI protocol consensus guidelines in multiple sclerosis: An Australian multi-centre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a debilitating disease that causes significant morbidity within a young demographic. Diagnostic guidelines for MS have evolved, and imaging has played an increasingly important role in diagnosis over the last two decades. For imaging to contribute to diagnosis in a meaningful way, it must be reproducible. Consensus guidelines for MRI in MS exist to define correct sequence type and imaging technique, but it is not clear to what extent they are followed. This study reviewed MRI studies performed on Australian individuals presenting with a first clinical diagnosis of central nervous system demyelination (FCD) for adherence to published guidelines and discussed practical implementation of MS guidelines in light of recent updates. Methods: The Ausimmune study was a prospective case control study of Australian participants presenting with FCD from 2003 to 2006. Baseline cranial and spinal cord MRI studies of 226 case participants from four separate Australian regions were reviewed. MRI sequences were classified according to anatomical location, slice plane, tissue weighting and use of gadolinium-containing contrast media. Results were compared with the 2003 Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centres MRI protocol for the diagnosis of MS. Results: The composition of core cranial MRI sequences performed varied across the 226 scans. Of the studies, 91% included sagittal fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences. Cranial axial T2-weighted, axial FLAIR and axial proton density-weighted sequences were performed in 88%, 60% and 16% (respectively) of scans. Only 25% of the studies included a T1-weighted contrast-enhanced sequence. Concordance with the guidelines in all sequences was very low (2). Conclusion: Only a small number of MRI investigations performed included all of the sequences stipulated by consensus guidelines. This is likely due to poor awareness in the imaging community of the guidelines and the rationale behind certain sequences. Radiologists with a sub-speciality interest in neuroradiology should take ownership of this issue and ensure that recommended imaging guidelines are followed.
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 | 0.080 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".