MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098921181 · doi:10.1016/s1476-5586(03)80038-6

High-Resolution Longitudinal Screening with Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Murine Brain Cancer Model

2003· article· en· W2098921181 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicholas A. Bock, Gelareh Zadeh, Lori M. Davidson, Baoping Qian, John G. Sled, Abhijit Guha, R. Mark Henkelman

Bibliographic record

VenueNeoplasia · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingVascularityMedicineIntracranial tumorPathologyBrain tumorRadiologyNeuroimagingGadoliniumNuclear medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main limitations of intracranial models of diseases is our present inability to monitor and evaluate the intracranial compartment noninvasively over time. Therefore, there is a growing need for imaging modalities that provide thorough neuropathological evaluations of xenograft and transgenic models of intracranial pathology. In this study, we have established protocols for multiple-mouse magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to follow the growth and behavior of intracranial xenografts of gliomas longitudinally. We successfully obtained weekly images on 16 mice for a total of 5 weeks on a 7-T multiple-mouse MRI. T2- and T1-weighted imaging with gadolinium enhancement of vascularity was used to detect tumor margins, tumor size, and growth. These experiments, using 3D whole brain images obtained in four mice at once, demonstrate the feasibility of obtaining repeat radiological images in intracranial tumor models and suggest that MRI should be incorporated as a research modality for the investigation of intracranial pathobiology.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeoplasiaSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207