MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108227114 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/11/010

Design of field-cycled magnetic resonance systems for small animal imaging

2006· article· en· W2108227114 on OpenAlexafffund
Kyle M. Gilbert, William B. Handler, Timothy J. Scholl, James Odegaard, Blaine A. Chronik

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsMagnetic fieldDuty cycleMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsField (mathematics)Larmor precessionElectromagnetic fieldComputer scienceOpticsComputational physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a design study for a field-cycled magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system directed at small animal imaging applications. A field-cycled MRI system is different from a conventional MRI system in that it uses two separate and dynamically controllable magnetic fields. A strong magnetic field is used to polarize the object, and a relatively weak magnetic field is used during signal acquisition. The potential benefits of field-cycled MRI are described. The theoretical dependences of field-cycled MRI performance on system design are introduced and investigated. Electromagnetic, mechanical and thermal performances of the system were considered in this design study. A system design for imaging 10 cm diameter objects is presented as an example, capable of producing high-duty-cycle polarizing magnetic fields of 0.5 T and readout magnetic fields corresponding to a proton Larmor frequency of 5 MHz. The specifications of the final design are presented along with its expected electromagnetic and thermal performance.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207