MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1990182423 · doi:10.1109/bmei.2011.6098260

Exploration of noninvasive mapping of brain pH with <sup>31</sup>P magnetic resonance spectroscopy

2011· article· en· W1990182423 on OpenAlexaff
Renhua Wu, Yanlin Chen, Weisong Liu, Qinru Qiu, K.M. Kong, Karel G. ter Brugge, David J. Mikulis, Jun-Chen Ye

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectroscopyNuclear magnetic resonanceNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyMagnetic resonance imagingResonance (particle physics)ChemistryPhysicsMaterials scienceAtomic physicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous study of brain “potential of hydrogen” (pH) was conducted in single-voxel31P magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy. In this study, we explored the feasibility of mapping brain pH by using multivoxel31P MR spectroscopy. Firstly, phantom studies were carried out with a GE 3T MR system using 2D PRESSCSI sequence. TR was 1000 msec and TE 144 msec with 128 scan averages. Then two healthy volunteers were studied with same parameters. Data were processed offline using the SAGE/IDL program. Multivoxel spectra were analyzed and brain pH values were calculated with a standard equation. Peaks of metabolite were not homogeneous in phantom studies at this moment. There was noise for multivoxel31P spectra in volunteer studies. However, phosphomonoester peak, inorganic phosphate peak, phosphodiester peak, and phosphocreatine peak can be identified. Preliminary brain pH map was generated in the volunteers. In our opinion, it is feasible to map brain pH with improved multivoxel31P MR spectroscopy.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→