MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159783272 · doi:10.1148/rg.262055063

MR Pulse Sequences: What Every Radiologist Wants to Know but Is Afraid to Ask

2006· review· en· W2159783272 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Bitar, General Leung, Richard Perng, Sameh Tadros, Alan R. Moody, Josée Sarrazin, Caitlin McGregor, Monique Christakis, Sean Symons, Andrew Nelson, Timothy P. L. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModality (human–computer interaction)RadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingEcho timeMedical physicsPulse (music)Nuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is growing exponentially, in part because of the excellent anatomic and pathologic detail provided by the modality and because of recent technologic advances that have led to faster acquisition times. Radiology residents now are introduced in their 1st year of training to the MR pulse sequences routinely used in clinical imaging, including various spin-echo, gradient-echo, inversion-recovery, echo-planar imaging, and MR angiographic sequences. However, to make optimal use of these techniques, radiologists also need a basic knowledge of the physics of MR imaging, including T1 recovery, T2 and T2* decay, repetition time, echo time, and chemical shift effects. In addition, an understanding of contrast weighting is very helpful to obtain better depiction of specific tissues for the diagnosis of various pathologic processes.

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)0.001
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.016

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations367
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207