MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086493791 · doi:10.1002/mrm.10713

Linear combination of multiecho data: Short <i>T</i><sub>2</sub> component selection

2004· article· en· W2086493791 on OpenAlexafffund
Craig Jones, Qing‐San Xiang, Kenneth P. Whittall, Alex L. MacKay

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsMyelinFraction (chemistry)Range (aeronautics)Set (abstract data type)SIGNAL (programming language)Component (thermodynamics)White matterNuclear magnetic resonanceMathematicsChemistryBiological systemComputer scienceMaterials sciencePhysicsMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceChromatographyCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The myelin sheath, which is wrapped around the axons in the brain, can be affected by many diseases, resulting in cognitive and physical disability. Other work showed water in the myelin sheath has a T2 approximately 15 ms. The current standard technique to estimate the fraction of myelin water in vivo is to collect multiecho data and fit the decay curves using a nonnegative least-squares (NNLS) algorithm. A new algorithm was developed to calculate optimized coefficients which were used to linearly combine multiecho data to estimate the myelin water signal. A set of simulations showed the new technique was accurate over a broad range of myelin water signal. The myelin water fraction from brain regions in scans from five volunteers, estimated by the linear combination method, agreed with the myelin water fraction estimated by the standard technique. The strength of the new technique is that the linear combination does not assume an underlying T2 model and is 20,000 times faster than NNLS.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
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 teacher head, 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

Citations38
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207