Phase‐contrast magnetic resonance quantification of normal pulmonary venous return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of phase-contrast magnetic resonance (PCMR) in quantifying the pulmonary venous return in normal subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PCMR was performed in 12 healthy adult volunteers (mean age 38 years, range 27-60 years; 9 men; body surface area 1.81+/-0.15 m2) for the ascending and descending aorta, caval veins, main and branch pulmonary arteries, and pulmonary veins. Two readers independently quantified blood flow in all subjects. RESULTS: Intraobserver differences were -2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.9% to 5.9%), -4.5% (95% CI: -15.6% to 6.5%), and -0.7% (95% CI: -4.5% to 3.0%) for all vessels, pulmonary veins, and other great vessels, respectively. Interobserver differences were -2.0% (95% CI: -10.6% to 6.6%), -3.1% (95% CI: -16.0% to 9.9%), and -1.4% (95% CI: -6.4% to 3.5%) for all vessels, pulmonary veins, and other great vessels, respectively. Pulmonary venous flow volume showed high correlations with the volumes of the pulmonary arterial flow, systemic arterial flow, and systemic venous flow (r=0.76-0.92, P<0.005). CONCLUSION: Flow quantification of normal pulmonary venous return using PCMR is feasible with high reproducibility and accuracy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".