MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022365036 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/6/1983

A diffusion-compensated model for the analysis of DCE-MRI data: theory, simulations and experimental results

2013· article· en· W2022365036 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob U. Fluckiger, Mary E. Loveless, Stephanie L. Barnes, Martin Lepage, Thomas E. Yankeelov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsVoxelContrast (vision)DiffusionDiffusion MRIDiffusion theoryIn vivoBiological systemMathematicsStatistical physicsComputer sciencePhysicsMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineThermodynamicsOpticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate quantification of pharmacokinetic parameters in dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI may be affected by the passive diffusion of contrast agent (CA) within the tissue. By introducing an additional term into the standard Tofts-Kety (STK) model, we correct for the effects of CA diffusion. We first develop the theory describing a CA diffusion corrected STK model (DTK). The model is then tested in simulation with simple models of diffusion. The DTK model is also fit to 18 in vivo DCE-MRI acquisitions from murine models of cancer and results are compared to those from the STK model. The DTK model returned estimates with significantly lower error than the STK model (p ≪ 0.001). In poorly perfused (i.e., K(trans) ≤ 0.05 min(-1)) regions the STK model returned unphysical ve values, while the DTK model estimated ve with less than 7% error in noise-free simulations. Results in vivo data revealed similar trends. For voxels with low K(trans) values and late peak concentration times the STK model returned ve estimates >1.0 in 40% of the voxels as compared to only 16% for the DTK model. The DTK model presented here shows promise in estimating accurate kinetic parameters in the presence of passive contrast agent diffusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.139 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207