MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of a high resolution MRI intracranial atherosclerosis imaging phantom

2017· article· en· W2594800877 on OpenAlexaff
Ju-Yu Chueh, Kajo van der Marel, Matthew J. Gounis, Todd LeMatty, Truman R. Brown, Sameer A. Ansari, Timothy J. Carroll, Amanda K. W. Buck, Xiaohong Joe Zhou, Arindam Chatterjee, R King, Hui Mao, Shaokuan Zheng, Olivia W. Brooks, Jeff W. Rappleye, Richard H. Swartz, Edward Feldmann, Tanya N. Turan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteFogarty International CenterNational Institutes of HealthPeking Union Medical CollegeZhejiang University
KeywordsImaging phantomICADMedicineNuclear medicineReproducibilityBiomedical engineeringLumen (anatomy)ScannerPhysicsOpticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Currently, there is neither a standard protocol for vessel wall MR imaging of intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) nor a gold standard phantom to compare MR sequences. In this study, a plaque phantom is developed and characterized that provides a platform for establishing a uniform imaging approach for ICAD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient specific injection mold was 3D printed to construct a geometrically accurate ICAD phantom. Polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel was infused into the core shell mold to form the stenotic artery. The ICAD phantom incorporated materials mimicking a stenotic vessel and plaque components, including fibrous cap and lipid core. Two phantoms were scanned using high resolution cone beam CT and compared with four different 3 T MRI systems across eight different sites over a period of 18 months. Inter-phantom variability was assessed by lumen dimensions and contrast to noise ratio (CNR). RESULTS: Quantitative evaluation of the minimum lumen radius in the stenosis showed that the radius was on average 0.80 mm (95% CI 0.77 to 0.82 mm) in model 1 and 0.77 mm (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81 mm) in model 2. The highest CNRs were observed for comparisons between lipid and vessel wall. To evaluate manufacturing reproducibility, the CNR variability between the two models had an average absolute difference of 4.31 (95% CI 3.82 to 5.78). Variation in CNR between the images from the same scanner separated by 7 months was 2.5-6.2, showing reproducible phantom durability. CONCLUSIONS: A plaque phantom composed of a stenotic vessel wall and plaque components was successfully constructed for multicenter high resolution MRI standardization.

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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroInterventional SurgerySame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207