Detection of Acute Reperfusion Myocardial Hemorrhage with Cardiac MR Imaging: T2 versus T2*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate T2 and T2* changes in acute reperfused hemorrhagic and nonhemorrhagic myocardial infarctions and to determine which technique is more suitable in the detection of intramyocardial hemorrhage at 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient studies were approved by the institutional review board and were HIPAA compliant. Patients (n = 14, three women) with first ST-elevation myocardial infarction underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging 3 days after angioplasty. T2* maps, T2 short inversion time inversion-recovery (STIR) images, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images were acquired. Animal studies were approved by the institutional animal care and use committee. Canines (n = 20) were subjected to ischemia-reperfusion injury, and cardiac MR imaging was performed 5 days after reperfusion. T2* and T2 maps and T2 STIR and LGE images were acquired. Repeated-measures analysis of variance or the Friedman test was used to compare T2 and T2* changes in patients with hemorrhagic infarctions and those with nonhemorrhagic infarctions. RESULTS: Relative to remote myocardium, mean T2* of hemorrhagic infarctions was 54% ± 13 (standard deviation) lower in patients (15.9 msec ± 4.5 vs 35.2 msec ± 2.1, P < .001) and 40% ± 10 lower in canines (23.0 msec ± 4.0 vs 39.3 msec ± 2.5, P < .001). Mean T2* of nonhemorrhagic infarctions was marginally elevated by 6% ± 2.5 (37.8 msec ± 2.5, P = .021) in patients and by 8% ± 5 (44.6 msec ± 4.8, P = .012) in canines. In contrast, mean T2 STIR signal intensity (SI) of both hemorrhagic infarctions and nonhemorrhagic infarctions was higher than that in remote myocardium both in patients (hemorrhagic: 37% ± 19, P < .001; nonhemorrhagic: 78% ± 27, P < .001) and in canines (hemorrhagic: 42% ± 22, P < .001; nonhemorrhagic: 65% ± 22, P < .001). Consistent with STIR SI findings, mean T2 of both hemorrhagic (62.0 msec ± 4.9) and nonhemorrhagic (71.7 msec ± 7.3) infarctions in canines was elevated relative to mean T2 of remote myocardium (52.1 msec ± 4.8) by 18% ± 9 and 38% ± 13, respectively (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSION: T2* cardiac MR imaging is more suitable than T2 cardiac MR imaging in the detection and characterization of acute reperfusion myocardial hemorrhage. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122397/-/DC1.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".