MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123755550 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2008.2006015

A Dedicated Two-Channel Phased-Array Receiver Coil for High-Resolution MRI of the Rat Knee Cartilage at 7 T

2008· article· en· W2123755550 on OpenAlexaff
A. Rengle, M. Armenean, Radu Bolbos, Jean-Christophe Goebel, Astrid Pinzano, Hervé Saint‐Jalmes, Pierre Gillet, Olivier Beuf

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic coilPhased arrayKnee cartilageRadiofrequency coilImage resolutionSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Materials scienceBiomedical engineeringCartilageKnee JointResolution (logic)Channel (broadcasting)Articular cartilageAcousticsOpticsPhysicsComputer scienceEngineeringOsteoarthritisTelecommunicationsAntenna (radio)AnatomyMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of small animal studies, the array coil imaging has become increasingly important. In this paper, a dedicated two-channel array coil operating at 300 MHz (7 T) for high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI) of the rat knee cartilage is presented. The average gain in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) compared to a 15-mm multipurpose surface coil was 2.2. This SNR gain was used to improve the spatial resolution of 3-D acquisitions by decreasing the voxel size from 59 x 59 x 156 microm(3) to 51 x 51 x 94 microm(3) without time penalty. Also, a set of two array coils was used to perform a simultaneous acquisition of both knee joints of a rat, maintaining the same scanning time without SNR or spatial resolution degradation compared to the single knee joint acquisition. This two-channel array coil is a key element to perform HR-MRI and extract cartilage morphological parameters such as thickness and volume.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207