The Effect of Respiratory and Cardiac Motion in Liver Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of respiratory and cardiac motion on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) metrics in healthy human liver. METHODS: Fifteen healthy subjects, participating in either part of this study, were scanned using a 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device. Coronal liver DTI (6 diffusion-encoding directions; b, 300 mm/s) during breath holding was compared to free breathing. Cardiac motion effects were evaluated by comparing breath-held DTI scans acquired during both diastole and systole. RESULTS: Free breathing resulted in a significantly increased mean diffusivity (P < 0.05), λ1 (P < 0.01), λ2 (P < 0.05), and λ3 (P < 0.01) compared to breath holding. During systole significant increases in fractional anisotropy (P < 0.05), mean diffusivity (P < 0.05), and λ1 (P < 0.05), compared to systole, were found in the left lobe. The right lobe, which is less affected by cardiac motion, showed no significant change in DTI metrics over the cardiac cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory and cardiac motion tends to increase liver DTI metrics.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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".