MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1958191124 · doi:10.1002/mrm.25564

Feasibility and reproducibility of measurement of whole muscle blood flow, oxygen extraction, and VO<sub>2</sub> with dynamic exercise using MRI

2014· article· en· W1958191124 on OpenAlexafffund
Kory W. Mathewson, Mark J. Haykowsky, Richard B. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReproducibilityCoefficient of variationNuclear medicineMedicineOxygen saturationBlood flowFick principleBiomedical engineeringVenous bloodOxygenKilogramMagnetic resonance imagingVO2 maxCardiac outputCardiologyHeart rateHemodynamicsChemistryInternal medicineBody weightBlood pressureRadiologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Develop an MRI method to estimate skeletal muscle oxygen consumption (VO2 ) with dynamic exercise using simultaneous measurement of venous blood flow (VBF) and venous oxygen saturation (SvO2 ). METHODS: Real-time imaging of femoral VBF using a complex-difference method was interleaved with imaging of venous hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SvO2 ) using magnetic susceptometry to estimate muscle VO2 (Fick principle). Nine healthy subjects performed repeated 5-watt knee-extension (quadriceps) exercise within the bore of a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner, for test/re-test comparison. VBF, SvO2 , and derived VO2 were estimated at baseline and immediately (<1 s) postexercise and every 2.4 s for 4 min. RESULTS: Quadriceps muscle mass was 2.43 ± 0.31 kg. Mean baseline values were VBF = 0.13 ± 0.06 L/min/kg, SvO2 = 69.4 ± 10.1%, and VO2 = 6.8 ± 4.1 mL/min/kg. VBF, SvO2 , and VO2 values from peak exercise had good agreement between trials (VBF = 0.9 ± 0.1 versus 1.0 ± 0.1 L/min/kg, R(2) = 0.83, CV = 7.6%; SvO2 = 43.2 ± 13.5 versus 40.9 ± 13.1%, R(2) = 0.88, CV = 15.6%; VO2 = 95.7 ± 18.0 versus 108.9 ± 17.3 mL/min/kg, R(2) = 0.88, CV = 12.3%), as did the VO2 recovery time constant (26.1 ± 3.5 versus 26.0 ± 4.0 s, R(2) = 0.85, CV = 6.0%). CV = coefficient of variation. CONCLUSION: Rapid imaging of VBF and SvO2 for the estimation of whole muscle VO2 is compatible with dynamic exercise for the estimation of peak values and recovery dynamics following exercise with good reproducibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207