MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066772034 · doi:10.1002/mrm.10618

Quantitative assessment of carotid plaque composition using multicontrast MRI and registered histology

2003· article· en· W2066772034 on OpenAlexafffund
Sharon E. Clarke, Robert Hammond, J. Ross Mitchell, Brian K. Rutt

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of CalgaryRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleLondon Health Sciences CentreMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineCarotid endarterectomyRadiologyCalcificationSegmentationHistologyArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePathologyStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MRI is emerging as a promising modality for monitoring carotid atherosclerosis. Multiple MR contrast weightings are required for identification of plaque constituents. In this study, eight MR contrast weightings with proven potential for plaque characterization were used to image carotid endarterectomy specimens. A classification technique was developed to create a tissue-specific map by incorporating information from all MR contrast weightings. The classifier was validated by comparison with micro-CT (calcification only) and with matched histological slices registered to MR images using a nonlinear warping algorithm (other components). A pathologist who was blinded to the classifier results manually segmented digitized histological images. The sensitivity of the classifier, as determined by pixel-by-pixel comparison with the pathologist's segmentation and micro-CT, was 60.4% for fibrous tissue, 83.9% for necrosis, 97.6% for calcification, and 65.2% for loose connective tissue. The corresponding values for specificity were 87.9%, 75.0%, 98.3%, and 94.9%, respectively. In conclusion, multicontrast MRI was successfully used in conjunction with a supervised classification algorithm to identify plaque components in endarterectomy specimens. Furthermore, this methodology will provide a framework for comparing different classification algorithms, and determining which combination of MR contrasts will be most valuable for in vivo plaque imaging.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 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

Citations175
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207