Non‐invasive MR imaging techniques for measuring femoral arterial flow in a pediatric and adolescent cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is well-suited for imaging peripheral blood flow due to its non-invasive nature and excellent spatial resolution. Although MRI is routinely used in adults to assess physiological changes in chronic diseases, there are currently no MRI-based data quantifying arterial flow in pediatric or adolescent populations during exercise. Therefore the current research sought to document femoral arterial blood flow at rest and following exercise in a pediatric-adolescent population using phase contrast MRI, and to present test-retest reliability data for this method. Ten healthy children and adolescents (4 male; mean age 14.8 ± 2.4 years) completed bloodwork and resting and exercise MRI. Baseline images consisted of PC-MRI of the femoral artery at rest and following a 5 × 30 s of in-magnet exercise. To evaluate test-retest reliability, five participants returned for repeat testing. All participants successfully completed exercise testing in the MRI. Baseline flow demonstrated excellent reliability (ICC = 0.93, p = 0.006), and peak exercise and delta rest-peak flow demonstrated good reliability (peak exercise ICC = 0.89, p = 0.002, delta rest-peak ICC = 0.87, p = 0.003) between-visits. All three flow measurements demonstrated excellent reliability when assessed with coefficients of variance (CV's) (rest: CV = 6.2%; peak exercise: CV = 7.3%; delta rest-peak: CV = 7.1%). The mean bias was small for femoral arterial flow. There was no significant mean bias between femoral artery flow visits 1 and 2 at peak exercise. There were no correlations between age or height and any of the flow measurements. There were no significant differences between male and female participants for any of the flow measurements. The current study determined that peripheral arterial blood flow in children and adolescents can be evaluated using non-invasive phase contrast MRI. The MRI-based techniques that were used in the current study for measuring arterial flow in pediatric and adolescent patients demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability both at rest and immediately post-exercise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".