MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085545207 · doi:10.1002/jmri.21505

Free‐breathing, nongated real‐time delayed enhancement MRI of myocardial infarcts: A comparison with conventional delayed enhancement

2008· article· en· W2085545207 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Detsky, John Graham, Ram Vijayaraghavan, Labonny Biswas, Jeffrey A. Stainsby, Michael A. Guttman, Graham A. Wright, Alexander Dick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreGeneral Electric (Canada)University of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineVentricleGradient echoMagnetic resonance imagingCardiologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To compare a free-breathing, nongated, and black-blood real-time delayed enhancement (RT-DE) sequence to the conventional inversion recovery gradient echo (IR-GRE) sequence for delayed enhancement MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with suspected myocardial infarct (MI) were examined using both the IR-GRE and RT-DE imaging sequences. The sensitivity and specificity of RT-DE for detecting MI, using IR-GRE as the gold standard, was determined. The contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) between the two techniques were also compared. RESULTS: RT-DE had a high sensitivity and specificity (94% and 98%, respectively) for identifying MI. The total acquisition time to image the entire left ventricle was significantly shorter using RT-DE than IR-GRE (5.6+/-0.9 versus 11.5+/-1.9 min). RT-DE had a slightly lower infarct-myocardium CNR but a higher infarct-blood CNR than IR-GRE imaging. Compared with IR-GRE, RT-DE accurately measured total infarct sizes. CONCLUSION: RT-DE can be used for delayed enhancement imaging during free-breathing and without cardiac gating.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.286
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 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207