MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049248110 · doi:10.1002/mrm.28473

Evaluation of fluorine‐19 magnetic resonance imaging of the lungs using octafluorocyclobutane in a rat model

2020· article· en· W3049248110 on OpenAlexafffund
Yurii Shepelytskyi, Tao Li, Vira Grynko, Camryn J. Newman, Francis Hane, Mitchell S. Albert

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityLakehead UniversityThunder Bay Regional Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineSpin echoNuclear magnetic resonanceScannerSpin–lattice relaxationImage qualityRelaxometryVoxelChemistryPhysicsMedicineRadiologyComputer scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To test octafluorocyclobutane (OFCB) as an inhalation contrast agent for fluorine-19 MRI of the lung, and to compare the image quality of OFCB scans with perfluoropropane (PFP) scans THEORY AND METHODS: After normalizing for the number of signal averages, a theoretical comparison between the OFCB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and PFP SNR predicted the average SNR advantage of 90% using OFCB during gradient echo imaging. The OFCB relaxometry was conducted using single-voxel spectroscopy and spin-echo imaging. A comparison of OFCB and PFP SNRs was performed in vitro and in vivo. Five healthy Sprague-Dawley rats were imaged during single breath-hold and continuous breathing using a Philips Achieva 3.0T MRI scanner (Philips, Andover, MA). The scan time was constant for both gases. Statistical comparison between PFP and OFCB scans was conducted using a paired t test and by calculating the Bayes factor. RESULTS: by 20%. The OFCB in vivo images showed 73% higher normalized SNR on average compared with images acquired using PFP. The statistical significance was shown by both paired t test and calculated Bayes factors. The experimental results agree with theoretical calculations within the error of the relaxation parameter measurements. CONCLUSION: The quality of the lung images acquired using OFCB was significantly better compared with PFP scans. The OFCB images had higher a SNR and were artifact-free.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207