MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2473997608 · doi:10.1118/1.4957631

TU‐H‐BRA‐09: Relationship Between B0 and the Contrast‐To‐Noise Ratio (CNR) of Tumour to Background for MRI/Radiotherapy Hybrids

2016· article· en· W2473997608 on OpenAlexaffabout
Keith Wachowicz, N DeZanche, Eugene Yip, Vyacheslav Volotovskyy, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGliomaRadiation therapyMagnetic resonance imagingContrast-to-noise ratioNuclear medicineRelaxation (psychology)Nuclear magnetic resonanceMedicinePhysicsRadiologyComputer scienceCancer researchImage quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To investigate the relationship in MRI between B0 and the contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) of various tumour/normal tissue pairs. This study is motivated by the current interest in MRI/radiotherapy hybrids, for which multiple magnetic field strengths have been proposed. CNR is the single most important parameter governing the ability of a system to identify a tumour in real time for treatment guidance. The MRI community has long since recognized that the SNR of a well‐designed MR system is roughly proportional to B0, the polarizing magnetic field. However, the CNR between two tissues is much more complicated ‐ dependent not only on this signal behavior, but also on the different relaxation properties of the tissues. Methods: Experimentally‐based models of B0‐dependant relaxation for various tumour and normal tissues from the literature were used in conjunction with signal equations for MR sequences suitable for rapid realtime imaging to develop field‐dependent predictions for CNR. These CNR models were developed for liver, lung, breast, glioma, and kidney tumours for spoiled‐gradient echo (SGE) and balanced steady‐state free precession (bSSFP) sequences. Results: In all cases there was an improved CNR at lower fields compared to linear dependency. Further, in some tumour sites, the CNR at lower fields was found to be comparable to, or sometimes higher than those at higher fields (i.e. bSSFP CNR for glioma, kidney and liver tumours). Conclusion: Due to the variation of tissue relaxation parameters with field, lower B0 fields have been shown to perform as well or better (in terms of CNR) than higher fields for some tumour sites. In other sites this effect was less pronounced. It is the complex relationship between CNR and B0 that leads to greater CNR at 0.5 T for certain tumour types studied here for fast imaging. B. Gino Fallone is a co‐founder and CEO of MagnetTx Oncology Solutions (under discussions to license Alberta bi‐planar linac MR for commercialization)

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→