MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2000432232 · doi:10.1118/1.2965983

Sci‐Fri PM: Planning‐11: Selection and optimization of angiographic roadmap images for magnetic resonance guided catheter tracking

2008· article· en· W2000432232 on OpenAlexaff
HS Chen, JN Draper, L. B. Andersen, Mohammad Sabati, Richard Frayne

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance angiographyMagnetic resonance imagingAngiographyContrast (vision)ScannerComputer scienceImage resolutionMedical imagingRadiologyComputer visionMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As endovascular magnetic resonance (MR) techniques for device tracking and guidance move closer to demonstrating clinical feasibility, more investigation in the generation and optimization of vascular roadmap images is need to achieve the full benefit of MR-guided procedure. MR angiographic roadmap imaging requires high signal-to-noise (SNR), good vascular-to-background contrast and short acquisition time. These requirements not only qualify the appropriate roadmaps for therapy, but also guide in the optimization of their acquisition parameters. We hypothesize that among the well established MR angiographic techniques, low-resolution phase-contrast (PC) images would prove satisfactory for vascular roadmap imaging. To verify this, four potential MR angiography techniques, specifically, time-of-flight, contrast-enhanced, phase-contrast and black-blood angiography, were explored for roadmap imaging using a canine model on a 3 T MR scanner. PC angiography was specifically performed to evaluate impact of key parameters on the SNR efficiency and vascular-to-background contrast efficiency in order to optimize the sequence for therapeutic use. Data were collected from five canines. Phase-contrast angiography was found to be most suitable for generating vascular roadmap for MR-guided endovascular therapy. It was also found that small acquisition matrix and large FOV produced satisfactory roadmap images provided that the size of the vessel of interest was more than a few times the in-plane pixel dimension. Also, reducing the phase encoding steps had minimal effect on vessel oriented parallel to the phase encode direction.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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