Regional pulmonary blood flow: Comparison of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MR perfusion and phase‐contrast MR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional pulmonary blood flow can be assessed using both dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR and phase-contrast (PC) MR. These methods provide somewhat complementary information: DCE MR can assess flow over the entire lung while PC MR can detect rapid changes in flow to a targeted region. Although both methods are considered accurate, one may be more feasible than the other depending on pathology, patient condition, and availability of an intravenous route. The objective of this study was to establish a consensus between the two methods by comparing paired DCE MR and PC MR measurements of relative blood flow in Yorkshire piglets (N = 5, age = 7 days, weight = 3.3 +/- 0.6 kg) under various physiological states including regional lung collapse. A strong correlation (R(2) = 0.71, P < 0.01) was observed between the methods. In conclusion, DCE MR and PC MR provide a consistent measure of changes in regional pulmonary blood flow.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".