MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>In vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy as a tool for investigating hepatobiliary disease: a review of <sup>1</sup>H and <sup>31</sup>P MRS applications

2005· review· en· W2171871443 on OpenAlexaff
Shahid A. Khan, I. Jane Cox, Gavin Hamilton, Howard C. Thomas, Simon D. Taylor‐Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver International · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear magnetic resonanceIn vivoNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyMedicineNuclear medicinePhysicsBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is a non-invasive technique, which allows the study of cellular biochemistry and metabolism. It is a diverse research tool, widely used by biochemists to investigate pathophysiological processes in vitro and, more recently, by physicians to determine disease abnormalities in vivo. This article reviews the basics of the NMR phenomenon and summarises previous research on the hepatobiliary system using both laboratory-based and clinical methodologies. The role of proton and phosphorus-31 ((31)P) NMR spectroscopy in the study of malignant and non-malignant liver disease and studies of bile composition are discussed. In vivo techniques (magnetic resonance spectroscopy, MRS) can be performed as an adjunct to standard MR examination of the liver. Although still primarily a research tool, the in vivo technique provides non-invasive biochemical information on disease severity and holds promise in its use to gauge response to treatment regimens.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver InternationalSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207