MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036234302 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020192291

Improving Safety of MRI in Patients with Deep Brain Stimulation Devices

2020· review· en· W3036234302 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Boutet, Clement T. Chow, Keshav Narang, Gavin J.B. Elias, Clemens Neudorfer, Jürgen Germann, Manish Ranjan, Aaron Loh, Alastair J. Martin, Walter Kucharczyk, Christopher J. Steele, Ileana Hancu, Ali R. Rezai, Andrés M. Lozano

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalConcordia UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMedicineDeep brain stimulationMagnetic resonance imagingMedical physicsRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MRI is a valuable clinical and research tool for patients undergoing deep brain stimulation (DBS). However, risks associated with imaging DBS devices have led to stringent regulations, limiting the clinical and research utility of MRI in these patients. The main risks in patients with DBS devices undergoing MRI are heating at the electrode tips, induced currents, implantable pulse generator dysfunction, and mechanical forces. Phantom model studies indicate that electrode tip heating remains the most serious risk for modern DBS devices. The absence of adverse events in patients imaged under DBS vendor guidelines for MRI demonstrates the general safety of MRI for patients with DBS devices. Moreover, recent work indicates that-given adequate safety data-patients may be imaged outside these guidelines. At present, investigators are primarily focused on improving DBS device and MRI safety through the development of tools, including safety simulation models. Existing guidelines provide a standardized framework for performing safe MRI in patients with DBS devices. It also highlights the possibility of expanding MRI as a tool for research and clinical care in these patients going forward.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations76
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207