MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053316538 · doi:10.1002/mrm.21400

Incorporating contrast agent diffusion into the analysis of DCE‐MRI data

2007· article· en· W2053316538 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin Pellerin, Thomas E. Yankeelov, Martin Lepage

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsContrast (vision)Compartment (ship)Magnetic resonance imagingGadoliniumDiffusionPerfusionDiffusion MRINuclear magnetic resonanceChemistryNuclear medicineDynamic contrast-enhanced MRIDynamic contrastPhysicsMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard two-compartment pharmacokinetic models that describe the dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) time course of gadolinium diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-DTPA) concentration in a tissue do not account for the passive diffusion of contrast agent (CA) from a well-perfused to a less vascularized region. Even when the arterial input function (AIF) is perfectly known, the standard Tofts model returns inaccurate values of K(trans) (mean absolute relative difference [ARD] of 43%) from realistic simulated data where a well-defined delineation exists between a well-perfused and a poorly vascularized region. This contribution proposes a diffusion-perfusion (DP) model in which diffusion of a low molecular weight CA is incorporated in the standard two-compartment Tofts model. The proposed DP model reliably retrieved the values of K(trans) and v(e) (mean ARD of 16% and 17%, respectively) from simulated data. On mouse adenocarcinoma xenograft data showing evidence of CA diffusion, the standard model returned unphysical values of v(e) in the tumor core whereas the proposed DP model found values that were in the physical range (0 < v(e) < 1) throughout the tissue. In addition, K(trans) distributions from the DP model more closely corresponded to the observed sharp delineation between highly and poorly perfused areas observed in the mouse tumors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

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

Citations58
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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