Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Central Nervous System Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of the two pivotal phase 3 studies was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of OptiMARK (Gd-DTPA-bis(methoxyethylamide) [Gd-DTPA-BMEA]) compared with Magnevist (Gd-DTPA) in magnetic resonance imaging of the central nervous system. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies were conducted in 395 patients with known or suspected central nervous system pathology. Subjects were randomized to receive a single 0.1 mmol/kg intravenous injection of either Gd-DTPA-BMEA or Gd-DTPA. The safety of Gd-DTPA-BMEA and Gd-DTPA was monitored for up to 72 hours after study drug administration. Precontrast and postcontrast administration magnetic resonance scans were acquired using identical imaging planes and techniques. RESULTS: No deaths or unexpected adverse events were reported in either group. A comparison of adverse events by intensity and relation demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Gd-DTPA-BMEA and Gd-DTPA were equivalent with respect to confidence in diagnosis, conspicuity, and border delineation. CONCLUSIONS: Gd-DTPA-BMEA and Gd-DTPA demonstrated comparable efficacy profiles, and the safety profiles were considered similar.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".