MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047853664 · doi:10.1002/mrm.10708

Quantitative diffusion imaging with steady‐state free precession

2004· article· en· W2047853664 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Deoni, Terry M. Peters, Brian K. Rutt

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteady-state free precession imagingNuclear magnetic resonanceEffective diffusion coefficientDiffusion MRIDiffusionPrecessionSIGNAL (programming language)Echo-planar imagingRelaxation (psychology)Diffusion imagingSpin echoFlip anglePhysicsMagnetic resonance imagingComputer scienceCondensed matter physicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The addition of a single, unbalanced diffusion gradient to the steady-state free precession (SSFP) imaging sequence sensitizes the resulting signal to free diffusion. Unfortunately, the confounding influence of both longitudinal (T1) and transverse (T2) relaxation on the diffusion-weighted SSFP (dwSSFP) signal has made it difficult to quantitatively determine the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Here, a multistep method in which the T1, T2, and spin density (Mo) constants are first determined using a rapid mapping technique described previously is presented. Quantitative ADC can then be determined through a novel inversion of the appropriate signal model. The accuracy and precision of our proposed method (which we term DESPOD) was determined by comparing resulting ADC values from phantoms to those calculated from traditional diffusion-weighted echo planar imaging (dwEPI) images. Error within the DESPOD-derived ADC maps was found to be less than 3%, with good precision over a biologically relevant range of ADC values.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 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

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207