A novel microbubble construct for intracardiac or intravascular MR manometry: a theoretical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been demonstrated that gas-filled microbubble contrast agents, based on their volume changes, can serve as pressure probes in an MR field. It was recently reported that such an MR-based pressure measurement with microbubbles at 1.5 T must make use of microbubbles that have a volumetric magnetic susceptibility difference with the blood of at least 34 ppm in SI units. In this work, we show through analytical approximations and numerical simulations that such a microbubble formulation can be achieved by coating typical lipid-shelled microbubbles with particles of high dipole moment. Through finite-element simulations we demonstrate that the effective volumetric magnetic susceptibility of a coated microbubble is dependent on the radius, the shell volume fraction and the magnetic susceptibility of the particulates on the shell. Our calculations suggest that a suitable microbubble formulation which will be MR-sensitive to small pressure changes at 1.5 T must be 2-3 microm in radius and be uniformly coated with single-domain magnetic nanoparticles, such as magnetite, at shell volume fractions below 5%.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".