MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571555848 · doi:10.7863/ultra.16.02005

Blood‐Brain Barrier Closure Time After Controlled Ultrasound‐Induced Opening Is Independent of Opening Volume

2017· article· en· W2571555848 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of HealthW. Garfield Weston Foundation
KeywordsMedicineFocused ultrasoundUltrasoundMagnetic resonance imagingEdemaNuclear medicineBlood–brain barrierBrain sizeBrain edemaPathologySurgeryRadiologyCentral nervous systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Microbubble‐mediated focused ultrasound (US) opening of the blood‐brain barrier (BBB) has shown promising results for the treatment of brain tumors and conditions such as Alzheimer disease. Practical clinical implementation of focused US treatments would aim to treat a substantial portion of the brain; thus, the safety of opening large volumes must be investigated. This study investigated whether the opened volume affects the time for the BBB to be restored after treatment. Methods Sprague Dawley rats (n = 5) received bilateral focused US treatments. One hemisphere received a single sonication, and the contralateral hemisphere was targeted with 4 overlapping foci. Contrast‐enhanced T1‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess the integrity of the BBB at 0, 6, and 24 hours after focused US. Results At time 0, there was no significant difference in the mean enhancement between the single‐ and multi‐point sonications (mean ± SD, 29.7% ± 18.4% versus 29.7% ± 24.1%; P = .9975). The mean cross‐sectional area of the BBB opening resulting from the multi‐point sonication was approximately 3.5‐fold larger than that of the single‐point case (14.2 ± 4.7 versus 4.1 ± 3.3 mm 2 ; P < .0001). The opened volumes in 9 of 10 hemispheres were closed by 6 hours after focused US. The remaining treatment location had substantially reduced enhancement at 6 hours and was closed by 24 hours. Histologic analysis revealed small morphologic changes associated with this location. T2‐weighted images at 6 and 24 hours showed no signs of edema. T2*‐weighted images obtained at 6 hours also showed no signs hemorrhage in any animal. Conclusions The time for the BBB to close after focused US was independent of the opening volume on the time scale investigated. No differences in treatment effects were observable by magnetic resonance imaging follow‐up between larger‐ and smaller‐volume sonications, suggesting that larger‐volume BBB opening can be performed safely.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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