MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109131248 · doi:10.1002/mrm.23209

Robust method for 3D arterial spin labeling in mice

2011· article· en· W2109131248 on OpenAlexaff
Brige Chugh, Jonathan Bishop, Yuqing Zhou, Jian Wu, R. Mark Henkelman, John G. Sled

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Centre for PhenogenomicsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetization transferCerebral blood flowArterial spin labelingNuclear magnetic resonanceComputer scienceAmplitudePerfusionPerfusion scanningMagnetizationBiomedical engineeringAlgorithmPhysicsMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineRadiologyCardiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arterial spin labeling is a versatile perfusion quantification methodology, which has the potential to provide accurate characterization of cerebral blood flow (CBF) in mouse models. However, a paucity of physiological data needed for accurate modeling, more stringent requirements for gradient performance, and strong artifacts introduced by magnetization transfer present special challenges for accurate CBF mapping in the mouse. This article describes robust mapping of CBF over three-dimensional brain regions using amplitude-modulated continuous arterial spin labeling. To provide physiological data for CBF modeling, the carotid artery blood velocity distribution was characterized using pulsed-wave Doppler ultrasound. These blood velocity measurements were used in simulations that optimize inversion efficiency for parameters meeting MRI gradient duty cycle constraints. A rapid slice positioning algorithm was developed and evaluated to provide accurate positioning of the labeling plane. To account for enhancement of T(1) due to magnetization transfer, a binary spin bath model of magnetization transfer was used to provide a more accurate estimate of CBF. Finally, a study of CBF was conducted on 10 mice with findings of highly reproducible inversion efficiency (mean ± standard-error-of-the-mean, 0.67 ± 0.03), statistically significant variation in CBF over 12 brain regions (P < 0.0001) and a mean ± standard-error-of-the-mean whole brain CBF of 219 ± 6 mL/100 g/min.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207