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

Brain imaging in drug R&D

2005· review· en· W2053573468 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Zijdenbos, Jason P. Lerch, Barry J. Bedell, Alan C. Evans

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.018

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomarkersSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207