MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053573468 · doi:10.1080/13547500500214392

Brain imaging in drug R&D

2005· review· en· W2053573468 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomarkers · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingMolecular imagingDrug developmentNeurosciencePipeline (software)Drug discoveryBrain functionMedicineComputer scienceMedical physicsDrugBioinformaticsBiologyRadiologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), used as a clinical diagnostic tool since the early 1980s, is rapidly gaining traction as an integral part of the drug development process. Brain imaging research spans a wide area, covering both structure and function, and ranging from the physics and physiology associated with novel acquisition techniques, to the development of sophisticated image processing algorithms. This paper briefly describes two methods on either end of this spectrum: the "pipeline" framework for the fully automated morphometric analysis of brain imaging data, and molecular MRI, which holds promise for the non-invasive detection of molecular targets of new pharmacological compounds. The potential use of these technologies is illustrated by examples of their applications in multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and oncology.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.322 · 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