Gadobutrol in the central nervous system at three doses: Results from a phase II, randomized, multicenter trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of three doses of gadobutrol and determine the minimum effective dose for contrast-enhanced MRI of the central nervous system (CNS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a Phase II, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group controlled study in subjects referred for contrast-enhanced MRI of the CNS. Subjects were randomized to receive gadobutrol 0.03, 0.1, or 0.3 mmol/kg body weight, and underwent unenhanced, gadobutrol-enhanced, and comparator-enhanced MRI scans. Three blinded readers assessed the images. Primary efficacy variables were number of lesions detected, border delineation, contrast enhancement, and internal morphology. RESULTS: Of the 229 randomized subjects, 173 were evaluated for efficacy. Clinically meaningful improvements in lesion border delineation, contrast enhancement, and internal morphology were observed for 0.1 mmol/kg gadobutrol. Pair-wise comparisons of a composite score of the four primary variables showed the 0.1 mmol/kg dose to be statistically superior to the 0.03 mmol/kg dose (P = 0.003). The 0.3 mmol/kg dose showed no statistically significant difference with the 0.1 mmol/kg dose. Twenty-two (9.8%) subjects reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). No TEAE was reported at an incidence >3.5%. CONCLUSION: The 0.1 mmol/kg dose of gadobutrol was effective and well tolerated for contrast-enhanced MRI of the CNS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".