MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Considerations for Gradient Echo Echo Planar Imaging of Skeletal Muscle

2018· review· en· W2789748966 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew D. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood flowMagnetic resonance imagingMyoglobinMedicineSkeletal muscleEcho (communications protocol)Blood volumeSIGNAL (programming language)Blood-oxygen-level dependentGradient echoCardiologyBiomedical engineeringInternal medicineComputer scienceRadiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adequate blood circulation to muscles is important for good health. In recent years, researchers have increasingly used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to study temporal skeletal muscle physiological changes using gradient echo (GRE) echo planar imaging (EPI). These studies, typically involving exercise or ischemic challenges, have differentiated healthy subjects from athletic or unhealthy populations, such as those with peripheral vascular disease. The T*2-weighted GRE EPI signal is sensitive to changes in blood flow and oxygenation in muscle. Furthermore, the signal can be weighted differently by adjusting the echo time (TE), achieving either blood volume (BV) or blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) imaging. This paper comprehensively reviews the muscle GRE EPI literature to date, with a particular emphasis on studies that have also used other modalities in an attempt to elucidate the GRE EPI signal characteristics. Finally, the systemic and muscle physiological factors that are thought to influence the GRE EPI signal during and after exercise are described. These include temperature, blood flow, blood oxygen saturation, myoglobin, and postural effects. The summary attempts to predict, based on the published literature, the temporal dynamics of these signal-influencing parameters in a hypothetical exercise experiment.

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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.344 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207