MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Attenuation Factors and Their Selection for Cancer Diagnosis and Monitoring

2015· article· en· W2476147317 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Valdés Cabrera, Jesus Osvaldo Dominguez Garcia, Gordon E. Sarty

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingDiffusion MRIIntravoxel incoherent motionDiffusionSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceRadiologyCancerMedical physicsMedicineNuclear medicineNuclear magnetic resonanceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is based on the detection of water molecule movement in interstitial and intracellular space, and that motion may be restricted in ischemia and in tumors. An early diagnosis and characterization of several cancer related diseases is possible with DWI. Diffusion-weighted images are therefore important for patient management. Knowledge of the technical requirements for DWI, including a suitable selection of b-values for differentiating between perfusion and true diffusion, as well as an understanding of the advantages and limitations of different b-values selections, is necessary to obtain reliable diagnostic results. The aim of this article is to review the fundamentals of the DWI technique, the common protocols used, b-value selection, and DWI's main contribution to neoplasm detection and staging.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207