Microstructural characterization and validation of a 3D printed axon-mimetic phantom for diffusion MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To introduce and characterize inexpensive and easily produced 3D-printed axon-mimetic (3AM) diffusion MRI (dMRI) phantoms in terms of pore geometry and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) metrics. Methods Phantoms were 3D-printed with a composite printing material that, after dissolution of the PVA, exhibits microscopic fibrous pores. Confocal microscopy and synchrotron phase contrast micro-CT imaging were performed to visualize and assess the pore sizes. dMRI scans of four identical phantoms and phantoms with varying print parameters in water were performed at 9.4T. DKI was fit to both datasets and used to assess the reproducibility between phantoms and effects of print parameters on DKI metrics. Identical scans were performed 25 and 76 days later to test their stability. Results Segmentation of pores in three microscopy images yielded a mean, median, and standard deviation of equivalent pore diameters of 7.57 μm, 3.51 μm, and 12.13 μm, respectively. Phantoms with identical parameters showed a low coefficient of variation (∼10%) in DKI metrics (D=1.38 ×10 −3 mm 2 /s and K=0.52, T1= 3960 ms and T2=119 ms). Printing temperature and speed had a small effect on DKI metrics (<16%) while infill density had a larger and more variable effect (>16%). The stability analysis showed small changes over 2.5 months (<7%). Conclusion 3AM phantoms can mimic the fibrous structure of axon bundles on a microscopic scale, serving as complex, anisotropic dMRI phantoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".