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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".