Importance of Reference Muscle Selection in Quantitative Signal Intensity Analysis of T2-Weighted Images of Myocardial Edema Using a T2 Ratio Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to identify the suitability of various skeletal muscles as reference regions for calculating the T2 SI ratio for a semiautomated quantification of the extent of myocardial edema with T2-weighted images. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) were enrolled. The extent of myocardial edema was determined by T2 SI ratio map, using 4 different muscles as reference: major and minor pectoralis, serratus anterior, teres minor-infraspinatus, and subscapularis. The size of myocardial edema as visually quantified was used as the standard of truth. The control group consisted of 15 patients with chronic MI. Intra- and interobserver variability were assessed. RESULTS: Due to poor image quality four patients were excluded from the analysis. In acute MI patients, serratus anterior muscle showed the strongest correlation with the visual analysis (r = 0.799; P < 0.001) and low inter- and intraobserver variability, while the other muscles resulted in a significant interobserver variability. In contrast, the use of other muscles as a reference led to overestimating edema size. CONCLUSIONS: In acute MI patients, serratus anterior resulted to be the most reliable and reproducible muscle for measuring the extent of myocardial edema.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".