Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping for Characterization of Intraplaque Hemorrhage and Calcification in Carotid Atherosclerotic Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Carotid artery intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), an unstable component of atherosclerosis, is associated with an increased risk of stroke. Purpose To investigate quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) as a tool for the evaluation of IPH and calcification in vivo. Study Type Prospective. Population Ten healthy volunteers and 15 patients. Field Strength/Sequence 3.0T Susceptibility‐weighted imaging (SWI), magnetization‐prepared rapid acquisition with gradient echo (MP‐RAGE), T1‐weighted sampling perfection with application of optimized contrasts using different flip angle evolution (T1‐SPACE), T2‐weighted turbo spin‐echo (T2WI), and time‐of‐flight (TOF) sequences. Assessment The vessel wall area of the carotid artery was measured with QSM and compared with T1‐SPACE on healthy volunteers. Four radiologists, blinded to clinical history and patient identity, determined the presence and area of IPH on MP‐RAGE and QSM, as well as the area of calcification on T1‐SPACE and QSM. Statistical Tests Bland–Altman analysis, Pearson correlation coefficients, linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the concordance of area measurements. Cohen's kappa (κ) was analyzed to determine the agreement between IPH detections. The paired t‐test was used to compare the group differences. Results In 423 matched slices, 20.1% (85/423) and 19.6% (83/423) were detected to have IPH on MP‐RAGE and QSM, respectively. IPH detection by QSM and MP‐RAGE showed good agreement (κ = 0.822, P < 0.001) between the two methods. There was no significant difference in IPH area measurements between QSM and MP‐RAGE (7.28 mm2 ± 6.41 vs. 7.16 mm2 ± 5.99, P = 0.575). There was no significant difference in calcification area measurement between QSM and T1‐SPACE (3.51 mm2 ± 1.78 vs. 3.41 mm2 ± 2.02, P = 0.783). Data Conclusion QSM is a novel imaging tool for the identification of IPH in patients with carotid atherosclerosis and enables differentiation of IPH and calcification. Evidence Level 1 Technical Efficacy Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:534–541.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".