Diffusion‐weighted MR imaging of the liver of hepatitis C patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the liver was investigated to determine whether this method could be used to differentiate between the stages of fibrosis and inflammation for hepatitis C viral infection. DWI data were recorded for 18 hepatitis C patients and 10 control subjects using a modified pulse sequence allowing a 52 ms echo time delay. Acquisitions were performed with breath holding using five different b gradient factor values ranging between 50 and 250 s/mm(2) and in the three axes. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were measured from a 5.7 cm(2) area in the central region of the liver. The inflammation and fibrosis grades were evaluated histologically on a biopsy sample. The mean ADC values were 2.30 +/- 1.28 x 10(-3) and 1.79 +/- 0.25 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s for hepatitis C patients and control subjects, respectively. Using our technique, no correlation could be found between the ADC values and the inflammation or fibrosis scores, indicating that tissue changes produced by hepatitis C do not appear to be quantifiable by DWI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".