MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793265488 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.203414

A Noninvasive Method for Quantifying Cerebral Blood Flow by Hybrid PET/MRI

2018· article· en· W2793265488 on OpenAlexafffund
Tracy Ssali, Udunna Anazodo, Jonathan D. Thiessen, Frank S. Prato, Keith St. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCerebral blood flowNuclear medicineGold standard (test)Nuclear magnetic resonanceMedicineBiomedical engineeringPhysicsRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although PET with 15O-water is the gold standard for imaging cerebral blood flow (CBF), quantification requires measuring the arterial input function (AIF), which is an invasive and noisy procedure. To circumvent this problem, we propose a noninvasive PET/MRI approach that eliminates the need to measure AIF by using global CBF determined by phase-contrast (PC) MRI as a reference region. This approach not only is noninvasive but also involves no additional imaging time, because PC MRI and 15O-water PET are acquired simultaneously. The purpose of this study was to test the accuracy of this hybrid method in an animal model in which AIF was measured directly and CBF was varied by changing the arterial CO2 tension. Methods: PET and MRI data were simultaneously acquired in juvenile pigs at hypocapnia (n = 5), normocapnia (n = 5), and hypercapnia (n = 4). CBF was measured by the MRI reference method and by PET alone using an MRI-compatible blood sampling system to measure AIF. Results: Global CBF estimates from PC MRI and 15O-water PET agreed well, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9 and a slope of 0.88. Strong positive correlations (R2 > 0.96) were also found between regional CBF generated by the PET-only and the MRI-reference methods. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate the accuracy of this hybrid PET/MRI approach, which might prove useful in patients for whom obtaining accurate CBF measurements is challenging.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207