MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029508942 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a1669

Localization of the Subthalamic Nucleus: Optimization with Susceptibility-Weighted Phase MR Imaging

2009· article· en· W2029508942 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra T. Vertinsky, Volker A. Coenen, Donna J. Lang, Shannon Kolind, Christopher R. Honey, D. Li, Alexander Rauscher

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersParkinson Society CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicineSusceptibility weighted imagingVisibilitySubthalamic nucleusVisualizationMagnetic resonance imagingQuantitative susceptibility mappingNuclear medicineFast spin echoParkinson's diseaseRadiologyPathologyArtificial intelligenceOpticsPhysicsDiseaseComputer scienceDeep brain stimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: On clinical MR images, the subthalamic nuclei (STN) are poorly delineated from adjacent structures, impeding safe direct targeting for placement of electrodes in the treatment of Parkinson disease. Susceptibility-weighted MR phase imaging offers improved contrast and spatial resolution at reduced imaging times relative to clinically used T2-weighted spin-echo imaging for STN visualization. Our purpose was to assess STN visibility by using phase imaging, comparing phase and magnitude images obtained concurrently by using susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI). The goal was to identify an efficient scanning protocol for high-quality phase images of STN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight SWI scans were acquired at 3T by using different TEs and acceleration factors. STN visibility and delimitation from adjacent structures were scored from 0 (not interpretable) to 5 (excellent). Regression analyses assessed the relationship of STN visibility to scanning parameters RESULTS: STN were identified at all studied TEs on phase images. Visibility and delimitation of STN were consistently superior on phase images compared with magnitude images. Good visualization (score of >or=4) of STN on phase imaging occurred at a mean TE of 20.0 ms and a sensitivity encoding (SENSE) of 1.40. Scores of STN visualization on phase images were dependent on SENSE (P < .002) and TE (P < .031). Good delimitation of the STN on phase imaging occurred at a mean TE of 21.6 ms and a SENSE of 1.36. CONCLUSIONS: Visualization and delimitation of STN was superior on phase images and was achieved at 3T in <2.5 minutes. A TE of 20 ms and an acceleration factor of <or=1.5 are recommended to visualize STN by using this method.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations77
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207