MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diffusion Tensor Imaging in the Human Spinal Cord: Development, Limitations, and Clinical Applications

2012· review· en· W2007069085 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel L. Bosma, Patrick W. Stroman

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffusion MRIWhite matterSpinal cordSpinal cord injuryMultiple sclerosisMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceMedicineAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisTractographyDiffusion imagingMyelitisPathologyRadiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is currently the only non-invasive in vivo assessment of white matter tract integrity. Capitalizing on the diffusion properties of water within an axon, DTI enables the visualization of tissue structure at a microscopic scale. Furthermore, measurements of anisotropy and diffusivity enable the detection of subtle details of the effects of injury that cannot be detected using conventional magnetic resonance techniques. Recently, DTI has been applied to the spinal cord, and results have demonstrated it to be a valuable tool for assessing the extent of white matter damage in numerous spinal cord-related conditions including multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, myelitis, and spinal cord tumors. The purpose of this review is to discuss the technical limitations of the imaging method within the spinal cord, review possible solutions, and highlight the current uses and the potential clinical application of this technique.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207