Integrated Cardiopulmonary <scp>MRI</scp> Assessment of Pulmonary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a heterogeneous condition that can affect the lung parenchyma, pulmonary vasculature, and cardiac chambers. Accurate diagnosis often requires multiple complex assessments of the cardiac and pulmonary systems. MRI is able to comprehensively assess cardiac structure and function, as well as lung parenchymal, pulmonary vascular, and functional lung changes. Therefore, MRI has the potential to provide an integrated functional and structural assessment of the cardiopulmonary system in a single exam. Cardiac MRI is used in the assessment of PH in most large PH centers, whereas lung MRI is an emerging technique in patients with PH. This article reviews the current literature on cardiopulmonary MRI in PH, including cine MRI, black‐blood imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, T 1 mapping, myocardial strain analysis, contrast‐enhanced perfusion imaging and contrast‐enhanced MR angiography, and hyperpolarized gas functional lung imaging. This article also highlights recent developments in this field and areas of interest for future research including cardiac MRI‐based diagnostic models, machine learning in cardiac MRI, oxygen‐enhanced 1 H imaging, contrast‐free 1 H perfusion and ventilation imaging, contrast‐free angiography and UTE imaging. Evidence Level 5 Technical Efficacy Stage 3
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".