MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049177462 · doi:10.1002/mrm.21966

Myelin water imaging: Implementation and development at 3.0T and comparison to 1.5T measurements

2009· article· en· W2049177462 on OpenAlexafffund
Shannon Kolind, Burkhard Mädler, Stefan Fischer, David K.B. Li, Alex L. MacKay

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam TrustsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
KeywordsNuclear magnetic resonanceMyelinStandard deviationSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)ChemistryT2 relaxationSIGNAL (programming language)Magnetic resonance imagingImaging phantomBiomedical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Nuclear medicinePhysicsMathematicsOpticsChromatographyMedicineComputer scienceStatisticsCentral nervous systemRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicomponent T(2) relaxation imaging can be used to measure signal from water trapped between myelin bilayers; the ratio of myelin water signal to total water is termed the myelin water fraction (MWF). The goal of this study was to implement and develop the single-slice T(2)-imaging technique proposed by Poon and Henkelman. For refinement, scan parameters (gradient crusher height and slew rate, bandwidth, echo spacing, matrix size, repetition time, and phase rewinding) were varied in water-based phantoms and in fixed and in vivo brain. Changes in the standard deviation of the residuals of the multiexponential fit, MWF, T(2), and peak width of the intra/extracellular water were monitored to determine which scan parameters minimized artifacts. Subsequently, we compared multicomponent T(2) measurements at 1.5T and 3.0T for 10 healthy volunteers, and investigated the differences in SNR, fit residuals, MWF, and T(2) and peak width of the intra/extracellular water, at higher magnetic field. MWF maps were found to be qualitatively similar between field strengths. MWFs were found to be significantly higher at 3.0T than at 1.5T, but with a strongly significant correlation between measurements (R(2) > 0.92, P < 0.0005). The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was nearly double at 3.0T, but the standard deviation of residuals was increased in most cases.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.331 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations76
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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