Comparison of hyperpolarized <sup>3</sup>He MRI with Xe‐enhanced computed tomography imaging for ventilation mapping of rat lung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung ventilation was mapped in five healthy Brown Norway rats (210-377 g) using both hyperpolarized (3)He MRI and Xe-enhanced computed tomography (Xe-CT) under similar ventilator conditions. Whole-lung measurements of ventilation r obtained with (3)He MRI were not significantly different from those obtained from Xe-CT (p = 0.1875 by Wilcoxon matched pairs test). The ventilation parameter r is defined as the fraction of refreshed gas per unit volume per breath. Regional ventilation was also measured in four regions of the lung using both methods. A two-tailed paired t-test was performed for each region, yielding p > 0.05 for all but the upper portion of the right lung. The distribution of regional ventilation was evaluated by calculating ventilation gradients in the superior/inferior (S/I) direction. The average S/I gradient obtained using the (3)He MRI method was found to be 0.17 ± 0.04 cm(-1) , whereas the average S/I gradient obtained using the Xe-CT method was found to be 0.016 ± 0.005 cm(-1) . In general, S/I ventilation gradients obtained from both methods were significantly different from each other (p = 0.0019 by two-tailed paired t-test). These regional differences in ventilation measurements may be caused by the manner in which the gas contrast agents distribute physiologically and/or by the imaging modality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".