MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582537586 · doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000000352

Quantification and Assessment of the Chemical Form of Residual Gadolinium in the Brain After Repeated Administration of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents

2017· article· en· W2582537586 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Frenzel, Chirag Apte, Gregor Jošt, Laura Schöckel, Jessica Lohrke, Hubertus Pietsch

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Radiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadoliniumGadodiamideChemistryChromatographyMedicineGel permeation chromatographyNuclear medicineBrain tissueBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Multiple clinical and preclinical studies have reported a signal intensity increase and the presence of gadolinium (Gd) in the brain after repeated administration of Gd-based contrast agents (GBCAs). This bioanalytical study in rat brain tissue was initiated to investigate whether the residual Gd is present as intact GBCA or in other chemical forms by using tissue fractionation and chromatography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rats were divided randomly in 6 groups of 10 animals each. They received 10 daily injections of 2.5 mmol/kg bodyweight of 1 of 5 different GBCAs: linear GBCAs such as gadodiamide (Omniscan; GE Healthcare), gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA, Magnevist; Bayer), or gadobenate dimeglumine (Multihance; Bracco) and macrocyclic GBCAs such as gadobutrol (Gadovist; Bayer) and gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA, Dotarem; Guerbet) or saline. On days 3 and 24 after the last injection (p.i.), 5 randomly chosen animals of each group were killed by exsanguination, and their brains were excised and divided into cerebrum, pons, and cerebellum. The brain sections were homogenized by sonication in ice-cold buffer at pH 7.4. Soluble and insoluble fractions were separated by centrifugation, and the soluble fractions were further separated by gel permeation chromatography (GPC). The Gd concentration in all tissue fractions and in the GPC eluate was measured by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. In a recovery control experiment, all GBCAs were spiked to blank brain tissue and more than 94% recovery of Gd in the tissue fractions was demonstrated. RESULTS: Only traces of the administered Gd were found in the rat brain tissue on day 3 and day 24 p.i. In the animals treated with macrocyclic GBCAs, Gd was found only in the soluble brain fraction and was present solely as low molecular weight molecules, most likely the intact GBCA. In the animals treated with linear GBCAs Gd was found to a large extent in the insoluble tissue fraction. The Gd concentration in the soluble fraction was comparable to the macrocyclic agents. According to GPC, a smaller portion of the Gd in the soluble fraction of the linear GBCAs groups was bound to macromolecules larger than 250 to 300 kDa. The nature of the Gd-containing macromolecules and the insoluble species were not determined, but they appeared to be saturable with Gd. The excretion of the soluble Gd species in the linear and macrocyclic GBCA groups was still ongoing between days 3 and 24 p.i. This was also observed for the macromolecular Gd species in the linear GBCA groups, but at a slower rate. CONCLUSIONS: The residual Gd found in the rat brain after repeated administration of all 3 linear GBCAs was present in at least 3 distinctive forms-soluble small molecules, including the intact GBCA, soluble macromolecules, and to a large extent in insoluble form. The latter 2 are most likely responsible for the prolonged signal intensity enhancement in brain structures observed in magnetic resonance imaging. No relevant differences between the 3 linear GBCAs were observed. The Gd concentrations in the brain after administration of macrocyclic GBCAs are lower, and the Gd is only present in soluble small molecules, which were slowly excreted. This underlines the crucial importance of the kinetic inertness of macrocyclic agents in the prevention of potential retention of Gd in the brain compared with the 3 linear, kinetically less restricted GBCAs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 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

Citations206
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative RadiologySame topicLanthanide and Transition Metal ComplexesFrench-language works237,207