MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103927071 · doi:10.1002/nbm.981

Magnetic resonance imaging for detection and analysis of mouse phenotypes

2005· review· en· W2103927071 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian J. Nieman, Nicholas A. Bock, Jonathon Bishop, Xianhao Chen, John G. Sled, Janet Rossant, R. Mark Henkelman

Bibliographic record

VenueNMR in Biomedicine · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of HealthGenome CanadaCanada Research ChairsBurroughs Wellcome Fund
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingPreclinical imagingPhenotypeComputational biologyBiologyNeuroscienceComputer scienceIn vivoMedicineGeneticsRadiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the enormous and growing number of experimental and genetic mouse models of human disease, there is a need for efficient means of characterizing abnormalities in mouse anatomy and physiology. Adaptation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to the scale of the mouse promises to address this challenge and make major contributions to biomedical research by non-invasive assessment in the mouse. MRI is already emerging as an enabling technology providing informative and meaningful measures in a range of mouse models. In this review, recent progress in both in vivo and post mortem imaging is reported. Challenges unique to mouse MRI are also identified. In particular, the needs for high-throughput imaging and comparative anatomical analyses in large biological studies are described and current efforts at handling these issues are presented.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.009

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations72
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNMR in BiomedicineSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207