MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044208839 · doi:10.1002/mrm.22856

Arterial input functions determined from MR signal magnitude and phase for quantitative dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in the human pelvis

2011· article· en· W2044208839 on OpenAlexaff
Greg O. Cron, Claire Foottit, Thomas E. Yankeelov, Leonard Avruch, Mark E. Schweitzer, I Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsReproducibilityDynamic contrastMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineMedicineDynamic contrast-enhanced MRISIGNAL (programming language)Biomedical engineeringNuclear magnetic resonanceRadiologyChemistryComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI is often used to measure the transfer constant (Ktrans) and distribution volume (ve) in pelvic tumors. For optimal accuracy and reproducibility, one must quantify the arterial input function (AIF). Unfortunately, this is challenging due to inflow and signal saturation. A potential solution is to use MR signal phase (ϕ), which is relatively unaffected by these factors. We hypothesized that phase-derived AIFs (AIFϕ) would provide more reproducible Ktrans and ve values than magnitude-derived AIFs (AIF|S|). We tested this in 27 prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies (echo time=2.56 ms, temporal resolution=13.5 s), using muscle as a standard. AIFϕ peak amplitude varied much less as a function of measurement location (inferior-superior) than AIF|S| (5.6±0.6 mM vs. 2.6±1.5 mM), likely as a result of ϕ inflow insensitivity. However, our main hypothesis was not confirmed. The best AIF|S| provided similar reproducibility versus AIFϕ (interpatient muscle Ktrans=0.039±0.021 min(-1) vs. 0.037±0.025 min(-1), ve=0.090±0.041 vs. 0.062±0.022, respectively).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

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

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207