MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2063158521 · doi:10.1118/1.2244684

Sci‐Fri PM Imaging‐09: Robust MR‐DSC Perfusion using a Patient Motion Correction Scheme

2006· article· en· W2063158521 on OpenAlexaff
Robert K. Kosior, Jayme C. Kosior, Richard Frayne

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerfusionMagnetic resonance imagingCerebral blood flowMedicineBlood flowPerfusion scanningImaging phantomStroke (engine)Match movingCerebral perfusion pressureRadiologyBiomedical engineeringNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Computer scienceCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke is a leading cause of death in North America and results when blood supply to the brain is reduced, which compromises nutrient exchange to and waste product removal from brain cells. Ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke and results when blood flow in an artery supplying blood to brain tissue is reduced due to a thrombus or embolism. Magnetic resonance (MR) dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion‐weighted imaging (PWI) shows great utility in assessing blood flow characteristics in brain tissue, and thus for potentially assessing tissue status in ischemic stroke. Quantitative cerebral blood flow (qCBF) maps can be generated from the 4D perfusion data and may be useful for defining perfusion thresholds to better determine tissue status. The accuracy of quantitative perfusion maps depends on the tracking of the same tissue location within the brain over the course of the image series; the consistency of this location tracking is compromised by patient motion during the scan. Patient motion blends the temporal signals of adjacent tissue locations in the brain, yielding erroneous perfusion measurements. Using a digital brain phantom and patient data, we investigated the effect of motion on qCBF maps and evaluated the efficacy of a realignment scheme for motion correction. Results show that qCBF maps are sensitive to motion and that that rigid‐body registration (realignment) is a robust scheme for correcting patient motion to improve the accuracy of qCBF maps.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→