MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203939532 · doi:10.1002/wnan.1757

Magnetic particle imaging for assessment of cerebral perfusion and ischemia

2021· review· en· W3203939532 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Ludewig, Matthias Graeser, Nils D. Forkert, Florian Thieben, Javier Rández‐Garbayo, Johanna Rieckhoff, Katrin Lessmann, Fynn Förger, Patryk Szwargulski, Tim Magnus, Tobias Knopp

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCharacterization and Applications of Magnetic Nanoparticles
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersGemeinnützige Hertie-StiftungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungEuroNanoMed III
KeywordsMagnetic particle imagingMedicineStroke (engine)NeuroimagingMagnetic resonance imagingPerfusion scanningMedical physicsRadiologyPerfusionNanotechnologyMagnetic nanoparticles

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke is one of the leading worldwide causes of death and sustained disability. Rapid and accurate assessment of cerebral perfusion is essential to diagnose and successfully treat stroke patients. Magnetic particle imaging (MPI) is a new technology with the potential to overcome some limitations of established imaging modalities. It is an innovative and radiation-free imaging technique with high sensitivity, specificity, and superior temporal resolution. MPI enables imaging and diagnosis of stroke and other neurological pathologies such as hemorrhage, tumors, and inflammatory processes. MPI scanners also offer the potential for targeted therapies of these diseases. Due to lower field requirements, MPI scanners can be designed as resistive magnets and employed as mobile devices for bedside imaging. With these advantages, MPI could accelerate and improve the diagnosis and treatment of neurological disorders. This review provides a basic introduction to MPI, discusses its current use for stroke imaging, and addresses future applications, including the potential for clinical implementation. This article is categorized under: Diagnostic Tools > In Vivo Nanodiagnostics and Imaging Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Neurological Disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations42
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Nanomedicine and NanobiotechnologySame topicCharacterization and Applications of Magnetic NanoparticlesFrench-language works237,207