Hematocrit Measurement with R2* and Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping in Postmortem Brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Noninvasive venous oxygenation quantification with MR imaging will improve the neurophysiologic investigation and the understanding of the pathophysiology in neurologic diseases. Available MR imaging methods are limited by sensitivity to flow and often require assumptions of the hematocrit level. In situ postmortem imaging enables evaluation of methods in a fully deoxygenated environment without flow artifacts, allowing direct calculation of hematocrit. This study compares 2 venous oxygenation quantification methods in in situ postmortem subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Transverse relaxation (R2*) mapping and quantitative susceptibility mapping were performed on a whole-body 4.7T MR imaging system. Intravenous measurements in major draining intracranial veins were compared between the 2 methods in 3 postmortem subjects. The quantitative susceptibility mapping technique was also applied in 10 healthy control subjects and compared with reference venous oxygenation values. RESULTS: In 2 early postmortem subjects, R2* mapping and quantitative susceptibility mapping measurements within intracranial veins had a significant and strong correlation (R2 = 0.805, P = .004 and R2 = 0.836, P = .02). Higher R2* and susceptibility values were consistently demonstrated within gravitationally dependent venous segments during the early postmortem period. Hematocrit ranged from 0.102 to 0.580 in postmortem subjects, with R2* and susceptibility as large as 291 seconds−1 and 1.75 ppm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of R2* and quantitative susceptibility mapping within large intracranial draining veins have a high correlation in early postmortem subjects. This study supports the use of quantitative susceptibility mapping for evaluation of in vivo venous oxygenation and postmortem hematocrit concentrations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".