MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122678409 · doi:10.1186/1532-429x-14-66

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance physics for clinicians: part II

2012· review· en· W2122678409 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchInstitute of GeneticsWellcome Trust
KeywordsPulse sequenceMagnetic resonance imagingAngiologyGadoliniumMedicinePulse (music)Magnetic resonance angiographyContrast (vision)PerfusionMedical physicsRadiologyNuclear magnetic resonanceComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceCardiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the second of two reviews that is intended to cover the essential aspects of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) physics in a way that is understandable and relevant to clinicians using CMR in their daily practice. Starting with the basic pulse sequences and contrast mechanisms described in part I, it briefly discusses further approaches to accelerate image acquisition. It then continues by showing in detail how the contrast behaviour of black blood fast spin echo and bright blood cine gradient echo techniques can be modified by adding rf preparation pulses to derive a number of more specialised pulse sequences. The simplest examples described include T2-weighted oedema imaging, fat suppression and myocardial tagging cine pulse sequences. Two further important derivatives of the gradient echo pulse sequence, obtained by adding preparation pulses, are used in combination with the administration of a gadolinium-based contrast agent for myocardial perfusion imaging and the assessment of myocardial tissue viability using a late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) technique. These two imaging techniques are discussed in more detail, outlining the basic principles of each pulse sequence, the practical steps required to achieve the best results in a clinical setting and, in the case of perfusion, explaining some of the factors that influence current approaches to perfusion image analysis. The key principles of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) are also explained in detail, especially focusing on timing of the acquisition following contrast agent bolus administration, and current approaches to achieving time resolved MRA. Alternative MRA techniques that do not require the use of an endogenous contrast agent are summarised, and the specialised pulse sequence used to image the coronary arteries, using respiratory navigator gating, is described in detail. The article concludes by explaining the principle behind phase contrast imaging techniques which create images that represent the phase of the MR signal rather than the magnitude. It is shown how this principle can be used to generate velocity maps by designing gradient waveforms that give rise to a relative phase change that is proportional to velocity. Choice of velocity encoding range and key pitfalls in the use of this technique are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.017
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.277 · 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