A simulation study of cell size and volume fraction mapping for tissue with two underlying cell populations using diffusion‐weighted MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To propose a method for voxel‐wise estimation of cell radii and volume fractions of two cell populations when they coexist in the same MR voxel using the combination of diffusion‐weighted MRI and microstructural modeling. Method Microstructure models were investigated using diffusion data simulated with the matrix method for a range of microstructures mimicking tumor tissue with two cell populations, using acquisition parameters available on preclinical scanners. The effect of noise was investigated for a subset of these microstructures. The accuracy and precision of the estimated radii and volume fractions for large and small cells were evaluated by comparing the estimates to their true values. The stability of model fitting was characterized by the percentage of accepted fits. Results The estimation accuracy and precision, and thus the ability to robustly distinguish the two cell populations, depended on the microstructural properties and SNR. For a SNR of 50, a minimum difference of 3 μm between the radius of the large and small cell populations was required for differentiation. Proposed modifications to the two cell population microstructure model, including constrained fits, improved the stability of fits. Conclusions This proof‐of‐concept study proposed a diffusion MRI‐based method for voxel‐wise estimation of cell radii and volume fractions of two cell populations when they coexist in the same MR voxel. The ability to reliably characterize tissue with two cell populations opens exciting avenues of potential applications in both tumor diagnosis and treatment monitoring.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".