MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991023617 · doi:10.1002/cmr.a.10051

Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the human brain and spinal cord by means of signal enhancement by extravascular protons

2003· article· en· W1991023617 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick W. Stroman, Bogusław Tomanek, Krisztina L. Malisza

Bibliographic record

VenueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Institute for Biodiagnostics
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSpinal cordFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNuclear magnetic resonanceSIGNAL (programming language)Magnetic resonance imagingSpin echoEcho timeFunctional magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the brainHuman brainBlood-oxygen-level dependentPhysicsNeuroscienceContrast (vision)ChemistryMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceRadiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A review of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signal changes in spin–echo image data is presented. Spin–echo fMRI data from the human brain and spinal cord show a consistent departure from that expected with blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) contrast. Studies to investigate this finding demonstrate fMRI signal changes of 2.5% in the spinal cord and 0.7% in the brain at 1.5 T, which is extrapolated to an echo time of zero. Consistent evidence of a non‐BOLD contrast mechanism arising from a proton‐density change at sites of neuronal activation is demonstrated. A mathematical model and physiological explanation for signal enhancement by extravascular protons is also presented. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Concepts Magn Reson 16A: 28–34, 2003

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part ASame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207