MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080436779 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237588

Contrast-free optical coherence tomography:Systematic evaluation of non-contrast media for intravascular assessment

2020· article· en· W3080436779 on OpenAlex
Trevor Simard, Pouya Motazedian, Kamran Majeed, Kiran Sarathy, Richard G. Jung, Joshua D. Feder, F. Daniel Ramirez, Pietro Di Santo, Jeffrey A. Marbach, Shan Dhaliwal, Spencer Short, Alisha Labinaz, Carl Schultz, Juan Russo, Derek So, Aun‐Yeong Chong, Michel Le May, Benjamin Hibbert

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Ottawa
FundersRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographySalineContrast (vision)Biomedical engineeringTomographyIn vivoMedicineMaterials scienceNuclear medicineRadiologyOpticsPhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization using imaging guidance is rapidly becoming the standard of care. Intravascular optical coherence tomography uses near-infrared light to obtain high resolution intravascular images. Standard optical coherence tomography imaging technique employs iodinated contrast dye to achieve the required blood clearance during acquisition. We sought to systematically evaluate the technical performance of saline as an alternative to iodinated contrast for intravascular optical coherence tomography assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed bench top optical coherence tomography analysis on nylon tubing with sequential contrast/saline dilutions to empirically derive adjustment coefficients. We then applied these coefficients in vivo in an established rabbit abdominal stenting model with both saline and contrast optical coherence tomography imaging. In this model, we assessed the impact of saline on both quantitative and qualitative vessel assessment. Nylon tubing assessment demonstrated a linear relationship between saline and contrast for both area and diameter. We then derived adjustment coefficients, allowing for accurate calculation of area and diameter when converting saline into both contrast and reference dimensions. In vivo studies confirmed reduced area with saline versus contrast [7.43 (5.67-8.36) mm2 versus 8.2 (6.34-9.39) mm2, p = 0.001] and diameter [3.08 mm versus 3.23 mm, p = 0.001]. Following correction, a strong relationship was achieved in vivo between saline and contrast in both area and diameter without compromising image quality, artefact, or strut assessment. CONCLUSION: Saline generates reduced dimensions compared to contrast during intravascular optical coherence tomography imaging. The relationship across physiologic coronary diameters is linear and can be corrected with high fidelity. Saline does not adversely impact image quality, artefact, or strut assessment.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.210 · 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