MR Angiography with Gadofosveset Trisodium for Peripheral Vascular Disease: Phase II Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the dose response and safety of gadofosveset trisodium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography compared with nonenhanced two-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography and with x-ray angiography as the standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, 20-center, double-blind study, 238 men and women who had peripheral vascular disease or were suspected of having it received intravenous injection of placebo or gadofosveset (0.005, 0.01, 0.03, 0.05, or 0.07 mmol per kilogram of body weight). MR angiographic images were evaluated by three blinded readers, and x-ray angiographic images were evaluated by two readers. Hypothesis testing for the presence of a dose response was based on a linear test for trend for increase in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve as a function of dose for each reader of MR angiographic images independently. RESULTS: Gadofosveset administration resulted in a dose-dependent increase in diagnostic accuracy for detection of aortoiliac occlusive disease as reflected in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for each reader (P <.001). The plateau in effectiveness improvement began at the 0.03 mmol/kg dose. At doses of 0.03 mmol/kg and higher, gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography provided an approximate 20% increase in accuracy over nonenhanced MR angiography for diagnosis of clinically significant aortoiliac occlusive disease. Gadofosveset exhibited a good safety profile in all dose groups. Three serious adverse events were possibly or probably related to gadofosveset administration. There were no dose-related trends in severe or serious adverse events in patients receiving gadofosveset. CONCLUSION: A dose of 0.03 mmol/kg of gadofosveset was safe and effective for evaluation of aortoiliac occlusive disease with MR angiography.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".