MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036011993 · doi:10.1148/radiol.13122397

Detection of Acute Reperfusion Myocardial Hemorrhage with Cardiac MR Imaging: T2 versus T2*

2013· article· en· W2036011993 on OpenAlexaff
Avinash Kali, Richard Tang, Andreas Kumar, James K. Min, Rohan Dharmakumar

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingMyocardial infarctionNuclear medicineRadiologyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations95
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207