Technical assessment of whole body angiography and cardiac function within a single MRI examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate a combined protocol for simultaneous cardiac MRI (CMR) and contrast-enhanced (CE) whole-body MR angiography (WB-MRA) techniques within a single examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Asymptomatic volunteers (n = 48) with low-moderate risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were recruited. The protocol was divided into four sections: (1) CMR of left ventricle (LV) structure and function; (2) CE-MRA of the head, neck, and thorax followed by the distal lower limbs; (3) CMR LV "late gadolinium enhancement" assessment; and (4) CE-MRA of the abdomen and pelvis followed by the proximal lower limbs. Multiple observers undertook the image analysis. RESULTS: For CMR, the mean ejection fraction (EF) was 67.3 ± 4.8% and mean left ventricular mass (LVM) was 100.3 ± 22.8 g. The intra-observer repeatability for EF ranged from 2.1-4.7% and from 9-12 g for LVM. Interobserver repeatability was 8.1% for EF and 19.1 g for LVM. No LV delayed myocardial enhancement was observed. For WB-MRA, some degree of luminal narrowing or stenosis was seen at 3.6% of the vessel segments (involving n = 29 of 48 volunteers) and interobserver radiological opinion was consistent in 96.7% of 1488 vessel segments assessed. CONCLUSION: Combined assessment of WB-MRA and CMR can be undertaken within a single examination on a clinical MRI system. The associated analysis techniques are repeatable and may be suitable for larger-scale cardiovascular MRI studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".