MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119662418 · doi:10.14814/phy2.12068

Hyperpolarized <sup>3</sup>He and <sup>129</sup>Xe magnetic resonance imaging apparent diffusion coefficients: physiological relevance in older never- and ex-smokers

2014· article· en· W2119662418 on OpenAlexafffund
Miranda Kirby, Alexei Ouriadov, Sarah Svenningsen, Amir Owrangi, Andrew Wheatley, Roya Etemad‐Rezai, Giles Santyr, David G. McCormack, Grace Párraga

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEffective diffusion coefficientCOPDMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingDLCONuclear medicineXenonClinical significanceNuclear magnetic resonanceDiffusing capacityInternal medicineLungChemistryRadiologyLung functionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noble gas pulmonary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is transitioning away from (3)He to (129)Xe gas, but the physiological/clinical relevance of (129)Xe apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parenchyma measurements is not well understood. Therefore, our objective was to generate (129)Xe MRI ADC for comparison with (3)He ADC and with well-established measurements of alveolar structure and function in older never-smokers and ex-smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In four never-smokers and 10 COPD ex-smokers, (3)He (b = 1.6 sec/cm(2)) and (129)Xe (b = 12, 20, and 30 sec/cm(2)) ADC, computed tomography (CT) density-threshold measurements, and the diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were measured. To understand regional differences, the anterior-posterior (APG) and superior-inferior (∆SI) ADC differences were evaluated. Compared to never-smokers, COPD ex-smokers showed greater (3)He ADC (P = 0.006), (129)Xe ADCb12 (P = 0.006), and ADCb20 (P = 0.006), but not for ADCb30 (P > 0.05). Never-smokers and COPD ex-smokers had significantly different APG for (3)He ADC (P = 0.02), (129)Xe ADCb12 (P = 0.006), and ADCb20 (P = 0.01), but not for ADCb30 (P > 0.05). ∆SI for never- and ex-smokers was significantly different for (3)He ADC (P = 0.046), but not for (129)Xe ADC (P > 0.05). There were strong correlations for DLCO with (3)He ADC and (129)Xe ADCb12 (both r = -0.95, P < 0.05); in a multivariate model (129)Xe ADCb12 was the only significant predictor of DLCO (P = 0.049). For COPD ex-smokers, CT relative area <-950 HU (RA950) correlated with (3)He ADC (r = 0.90, P = 0.008) and (129)Xe ADCb12 (r = 0.85, P = 0.03). In conclusion, while (129)Xe ADCb30 may be appropriate for evaluating subclinical or mild emphysema, in this small group of never-smokers and ex-smokers with moderate-to-severe emphysema, (129)Xe ADCb12 provided a physiologically appropriate estimate of gas exchange abnormalities and alveolar microstructure.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations45
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological ReportsSame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207