MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023101546 · doi:10.2478/v10019-008-0015-3

A phantom to assess the accuracy of tumor delineation using MRSI

2008· article· en· W2023101546 on OpenAlexafffund
Amr Heikal, Keith Wachowicz, Steven Thomas, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology and Oncology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineImaging phantomRadiologyNuclear medicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A phantom to assess the accuracy of tumor delineation using MRSIBackground. Studies have demonstrated that magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) can detect regions of abnormal activity (tumor) that would not have been covered using conventional imaging and contouring methods. With increased interest in MRSI it is important that its accuracy in tumor delineation be investigated. While some effort has been made to design phantoms to examine the performance of MRSI sequences, most phantoms rely on using traditional glass or acrylic as the phantom building material.Material and methods. In this work, a gel-based detail phantom has been developed to assess the ability of the spectroscopic imaging sequences to accurately represent the geometry of tumors. The gel-based phantom is used as an alternative to conventional acrylic or glass based phantoms for use with MRSI.Results. Gel-based phantoms have the advantage of having a magnetic susceptibility close to that of water. In addition, we demonstrate the benefits of having no finite wall thickness separating phantom compartments. The utility of the phantom was illustrated in comparisons between different MRSI sequences of the same nominal resolution as well as different filtering parameters.Conclusions. Due to their ease of construction and the reduced artifacts, gel phantoms are a

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiology and OncologySame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207