MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131962053 · doi:10.1002/jmri.24648

Principles of T<sub>2</sub>*‐weighted dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI technique in brain tumor imaging

2014· review· en· W2131962053 on OpenAlexaff
Mark S. Shiroishi, Gloria Castellazzi, Jerrold L. Boxerman, Francesco d’Amore, Marco Essig, Thanh Nguyen, James M. Provenzale, David S. Enterline, Nicoletta Anzalone, Arnd Dörfler, Àlex Rovira, Max Wintermark, Meng Law

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAmgenTakeda OncologyNational Institutes of HealthSanofiBayer HealthCareNational Center for Research ResourcesGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science AllianceTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesSouthern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteBiogenRadiological Society of North AmericaBracco Diagnostics
KeywordsGrading (engineering)Magnetic resonance imagingBrain tumorMedicineDynamic contrastRadiologyNeuroimagingPerfusion scanningDynamic contrast-enhanced MRINuclear medicineMedical physicsPerfusionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI) is used to track the first pass of an exogenous, paramagnetic, nondiffusible contrast agent through brain tissue, and has emerged as a powerful tool in the characterization of brain tumor hemodynamics. DSC-MRI parameters can be helpful in many aspects, including tumor grading, prediction of treatment response, likelihood of malignant transformation, discrimination between tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis, and differentiation between true early progression and pseudoprogression. This review aims to provide a conceptual overview of the underlying principles of DSC-MRI of the brain for clinical neuroradiologists, scientists, or students wishing to improve their understanding of the technical aspects, pitfalls, and controversies of DSC perfusion MRI of the brain. Future consensus on image acquisition parameters and postprocessing of DSC-MRI will most likely allow this technique to be evaluated and used in high-quality multicenter studies and ultimately help guide clinical care.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations146
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207