MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2362230363

A feasibility study of MR thermometry in vertebra tumor thermotherapy

2015· article· en· W2362230363 on OpenAlexaff
Shuzhen Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVertebraStandard deviationNuclear medicineMedicineRegion of interestScannerAortaBiomedical engineeringNuclear magnetic resonanceMathematicsAnatomyRadiologyPhysicsSurgeryStatisticsOptics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To analyze difficulties of temperature measuring by MR thermometry in different types of tissues near vertebra. Method Regions of interest( ROI) were segmented into several parts based on clinical needs and T1 / T2 maps were acquired in a 3T Phillips scanner. Proton Resonance Frequency( PRF) and spectrum estimation were used separately to measure the temperature in water-domain and water-fat mixed tissues, with field drift correction using muscles as background tissues. Results Eighty-three hundred pixels were chosen in each ROI for PRF method. The mean error value of the spinal cord and intervertebral disk was below 0.2 ℃, and the standard deviation was below 1.5 ℃. The mean error value of the aorta and vena cava was 0.9 ℃-1.8 ℃, while the standard deviation was below 1.7 ℃. The mean error value of the vertebra was around 0.9 ℃, while the standard deviation was near 12 ℃. The standard deviation of the vertebra water-fat mixed region was still above 12 ℃ by using spectrum estimation method. Conclusions MR thermometry nas good performances in regions of water-domain and less blood flow, while the blood flow in aorta and vena caca can induce disturbances in temperature measuring. Susceptibility caused by cancellous bone can also bring errors into temperature results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207