MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998570823 · doi:10.1002/mrm.22920

Signal‐to‐noise ratio for hyperpolarized <sup>3</sup>He MR imaging of human lungs: A 1.5 T and 3 T comparison

2011· article· en· W1998570823 on OpenAlexafffund
William Dominguez‐Viqueira, Alexei Ouriadov, Rafael O’Halloran, Sean B. Fain, Giles Santyr

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNuclear magnetic resonanceSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Noise (video)PolarizerField strengthElectromagnetic coilPhysicsNuclear medicineChemistryMagnetic fieldOpticsImage (mathematics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The signal-to-noise ratio in hyperpolarized noble gas MR imaging is expected to be independent of field strength at frequencies typical of clinical systems (e.g., 1.5 T), where body noise dominates over coil noise. Furthermore, at higher fields (e.g., 3 T), the SNR of lung images may decline due to decreases in T(2) originating from increases in susceptibility-induced field gradients at the air-tissue interface. In this work, the SNR of hyperpolarized (3) He lung imaging at two commonly used clinical field strengths (1.5 T and 3 T) were compared in the same volunteers. Thermally polarized and hyperpolarized (3) He phantoms were used to account for differences in MR imaging system and (3) He polarizer performance, respectively, at the two field strengths. After correcting for T(2) values measured at 1.5 T (16 ± 2 ms) and 3 T (7 ± 1 ms), no significant difference in image SNR between the two field strengths was observed, consistent with theory.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207