MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111331129 · doi:10.21037/qims-20-148

The value of a shorter-delay arterial spin labeling protocol for detecting cerebrovascular impairment

2020· article· en· W3111331129 on OpenAlexaff
Caiyu Zhuang, Julien Poublanc, Larissa McKetton, Lashmi Venkatraghavan, Olivia Sobczyk, James Duffin, Adrian P. Crawley, Joseph A. Fisher, Renhua Wu, David J. Mikulis

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCerebral blood flowRegion of interestArterial spin labelingMedicineNuclear medicineSignificant differenceCardiologyInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) obtained from arterial spin labeling (ASL) using different post labeling delays (PLD). METHODS: Forty-two patients with steno-occlusive diseases and impaired CVR were divided into two groups, one scanned with a 1.5-second (1.5-s) and the other with a 2.5-second (2.5-s) PLD ASL protocol. For all patients, a region of interest (ROI) was drawn around the CVR impairment. This affected ROI was then left-right flipped across the brain midline to obtain the control ROI. For both groups, the difference in grey matter CVR between affected and control ROI was first tested to confirm significance. The average grey matter CBF of affected and control ROIs were then compared. The same analysis method was used to compare affected and control hemispheres. RESULTS: In both groups of 1.5-s and 2.5-s PLD, CVR values in the affected ROI (-0.049±0.055 and -0.042±0.074%/mmHg, respectively) were significantly lower compared to that in the control ROI (0.152±0.054 and 0.152±0.053%/mmHg, respectively, P<0.0001). In the group with the 1.5-s PLD, CBF in the affected ROI (37.62±11.37 mL/100 g/min) was significantly lower compared to CBF in the control ROI (44.13±11.58 mL/100 g/min, P<0.05). However, in the group with the 2.5-s PLD, no significant differences could be seen between CBF in the affected ROI (40.50±14.82 mL/100 g/min) and CBF in the control ROI (39.68±12.49 mL/100 g/min, P=0.73). In the hemisphere-based analysis, CBF was significantly lower in the affected side than in the control side for the group with the 1.5-s PLD (P<0.05) when CVR was impaired (P<0.0001), but not for the group with the 2.5-s PLD (P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study reveals and highlights the value of a shorter-PLD ASL protocol, which is able to reflect CVR impairment. At the same time, we offer a better understanding of the relationship between BOLD CVR and CBF obtained from ASL.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and SurgerySame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207