Measuring the Integrity of the Human Blood–Brain Barrier Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation of blood-brain barrier (BBB) integrity with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may prove valuable in the setting of certain brain pathologies, such as brain tumors and acute ischemic stroke. Various MRI protocols have been developed to explore the integrity of the BBB by monitoring the leakage of intravenously administered contrast medium into the brain parenchyma. In its simplest form, BBB integrity is assessed qualitatively, by determining the presence or absence of contrast-enhancement on a structural MR image. When a dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI protocol is combined with a suitable pharmacokinetic model, DCE-MRI can map the spatial distribution of BBB integrity throughout the brain and assist with evaluating the effects of therapy. Several model-free surrogate measures of BBB permeability have been recently proposed, all of which can be readily computed from standard dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI perfusion scans. Contrast-enhanced MRI offers multiple strategies for evaluating BBB integrity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".