A comparison of conventional spin‐echo and fast spin‐echo in the detection of multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fast spin-echo (FSE) pulse sequences enable T2-weighted imaging in a fraction of the time required for T2-weighted conventional spin-echo (CSE) imaging. Due to concerns that the altered contrast characteristics of FSE may interfere with the visualization of multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions, the sensitivity of T2-weighted FSE sequences was compared to comparably weighted CSE sequences in the imaging of the brain in 100 patients with clinically suspected MS. The proton-density FSE sequence revealed more MS lesions than its CSE counterpart, while the T2-weighted CSE sequences were found to be more sensitive than the T2-weighted FSE sequence. Contrast-to-noise ratios and signal-to-noise ratios compared favorably between sequences. Overall, there was little difference in the specificity between FSE and CSE in the diagnosis of MS. The higher sensitivity and the reduction in time attainable through the use of FSE warrants its replacement of CSE when imaging the brain in patients with clinically suspected MS. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2001;13:657-667.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".