MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964890188 · doi:10.1002/jmri.23896

Hyperpolarized helium‐3 magnetic resonance imaging of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation

2012· article· en· W1964890188 on OpenAlexafffund
Miranda Kirby, Nikhil Kanhere, Roya Etemad‐Rezai, David G. McCormack, Grace Párraga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineExacerbationCOPDMagnetic resonance imagingPulmonary diseaseNuclear medicinePulmonary function testingCopd exacerbationEffective diffusion coefficientRadiologyCardiologyAcute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exsmoker underwent pulmonary function tests and hyperpolarized helium-3 ((3) He) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) serially over 4 years, twice prior to and twice following an acute exacerbation (AE). About 2.5 years pre-AE, (3) He ventilation defect percent (VDP) was 16%, the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was 0.34 cm(2) /s, and forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1 ) was 41%pred . Six months pre-AE, VDP and ADC were worse (29% and 0.38 cm(2) /s, respectively) without worsening FEV1 (47%pred ). After hospitalization and AE treatment, VDP was 20%, whereas FEV1 did not improve (45%pred ); 16 months post-AE, both VDP and ADC remained improved and similar to 4 years prior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207