Fast measurement of intracardiac pressure differences with 2D breath‐hold phase‐contrast MRI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracardiovascular blood pressure differences can be derived from velocity images acquired with phase-contrast (PC) MRI by evaluating the Navier-Stokes equations. Pressure differences within a slice of interest can be calculated using only the in-plane velocity components from that slice. This rapid exam is proposed as an alternative to the lengthy 3D velocity imaging exams. Despite their good spatial coverage, the 3D exams are prone to artifacts and errors from respiratory motion and insufficient temporal resolution, and are unattractive in the clinical setting due to their excessive scan times (>10 min of free breathing). The proposed single-slice approach requires only one or two breath-holds of acquisition time, and the velocity data can be processed for the calculation of pressure differences online with immediate feedback. The impact of reducing the pressure difference calculation to two dimensions is quantified by comparison with 3D data sets for the case of blood flow within the cardiac chambers. The calculated pressure differences are validated using high-fidelity pressure transducers both in a pulsatile flow phantom and in vivo in a dog model. There was excellent agreement between the transducer and PC-MRI results in all of the studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it