Navigator‐gated three‐dimensional MR angiography of the pulmonary arteries using steady‐state free precession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the quality of a navigator-gated, free breathing, steady-state free precession (SSFP) technique in comparison to a single breathhold for pulmonary artery imaging in normal volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sagittal sections of the left pulmonary arteries of 10 volunteers were obtained with a three-dimensional SSFP sequence using both a single breathhold of 30 seconds and a navigator-gated version of the same sequence. The images were compared and rated by a blinded cardiovascular radiologist for image quality, sharpness, and artifact. RESULTS: On a scale ranging from -2 to 2, in which positive numbers denote that the navigator method was favorable compared to the single breathhold method, image quality was rated 0.7+/-1.4, sharpness 0.6+/-1.5, and artifact 0.1+/-1.4. Thus, there was no statistical difference between the two methods. CONCLUSION: The navigator-gated SSFP sequence is able to acquire images equal in quality to the breathhold sequence. This may be of clinical importance for pulmonary imaging in patients who are unable to sustain a long breathhold.
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) | 0.000 | 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".