MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967295801 · doi:10.1002/mrm.10701

Regional variations in normal brain shown by quantitative magnetization transfer imaging

2004· article· en· W1967295801 on OpenAlexaff
John G. Sled, Ives R. Levesque, Antônio Carlos dos Santos, S. J. Francis, Sridar Narayanan, Steven D. Brass, Douglas L. Arnold, G. Bruce Pike

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetization transferWhite matterVoxelNuclear magnetic resonanceMagnetizationMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicinePhysicsMedicineRadiologyMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quantitative magnetization transfer imaging (qMTI) study, based on a two-pool model of magnetization transfer, was performed on seven normal subjects to determine, on a regional basis, normal values for the pool sizes, exchange, and relaxation parameters that characterize the MT phenomenon. Regions were identified on high-resolution anatomical scans using a combination of manual and automatic methods. Only voxels identified as pure tissue at the resolution of the quantitative scans were considered for analysis. While no left/right differences were observed, significant differences were found among white-matter regions and gray-matter regions. These regional differences were compared with existing cytoarchitectural data. In addition, the pattern and magnitude of the regional differences observed in white matter was found to be different from that reported previously for an alternative putative MRI measure of myelination, the 10-50-ms T2 component described as myelin water.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations102
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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