Advances in Multimodality Imaging Through a Hybrid PET/MRI System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of integrated imaging systems for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) is currently being explored in a number of laboratories and industrial settings. PET/MRI scanners for both preclinical and human research applications are being developed. PET/MRI overcomes many limitations of PET/computed tomography (CT), such as limited tissue contrast and high radiation doses delivered to the patient or the animal being studied. In addition, recent PET/MRI designs allow for simultaneous rather than sequential acquisition of PET and MRI data, which could not have been achieved through a combination of PET and CT scanners. In a combined PET/CT scanner, while both scanners share a common patient bed, they are hard-wired back-to-back and therefore do not allow simultaneous data acquisition. While PET/MRI offers the possibility of novel imaging strategies, it also creates considerable challenges for acquiring artifact-free images from both modalities. In this review, we discuss motivations, challenges, and potential research applications of developing PET/MRI technology. A brief overview of both MRI and PET is presented and preclinical and clinical applications of PET/MRI are identified. Finally, issues and concerns about image quality, clinical practice, and economic feasibility are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".