MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084230047 · doi:10.1002/jmri.21859

Imaging the vessel wall in major peripheral arteries using susceptibility‐weighted imaging

2009· article· en· W2084230047 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Yang, Jiantao Liu, Samuel Barnes, Zhen Wu, Kuncheng Li, Jaladhar Neelavalli, Jiani Hu, E. Mark Haacke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsLumen (anatomy)Susceptibility weighted imagingCalcificationMedicineMaterials scienceNuclear medicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To demonstrate a novel contrast mechanism for imaging the vessel wall and vessel wall calcification using susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen subjects were imaged with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and high-resolution SWI at 3T. The SWI imaging parameters were optimized to allow for the best visualization of the femoral artery lumen and the arterial wall in magnitude and phase images, respectively. SWI-filtered phase data were used to evaluate the diamagnetic susceptibility of vessel wall and of putative vessel wall calcification. Imaging was performed using TE = 15.6 msec (in-phase for fat); TR = 25 msec, flip angle (FA) = 10 degrees , bandwidth (BW) = 80 Hz/pixel, resolution = 0.5 x 0.5 mm in-plane and 1.0 mm through-plane, an acquisition matrix of 512 x 384 x 64 (for read, phase, and slice-select directions), and a total scan time of 8 minutes. RESULTS: Nineteen calcifications were identified in CT and SWI and they correlated well in both size and position. The contrast-to-noise ratio between the blood signal in the lumen of the artery and arterial wall was 11.7:1 and 7.4:1 in magnitude and in phase images, respectively. CONCLUSION: SWI provides a novel means to visualize vessel wall and recognize the presence of calcification.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations50
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207