High-Resolution Magnetization-Transfer Imaging of <i>Post-Mortem</i> Marmoset Brain: Comparisons with Relaxometry and Histology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cell membranes and macromolecules or paramagnetic compounds interact with water proton spins, which modulates magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast providing information on tissue composition. For a further investigation, quantitative magnetization transfer (qMT) parameters (at 3T), including the ratio of the macromolecular and water proton pools, ℱ, and the exchange-rate constant as well as the (observed) longitudinal and the effective transverse relaxation rates (at 3T and 7T), and respectively, were measured at high spatial resolution (200 μm) in a slice of fixed marmoset brain and compared to histology results obtained with Gallyas’ myelin stain and Perls’ iron stain. and were linearly correlated with the iron content for the entire slice, whereas distinct differences were obtained between gray and white matter for correlations of relaxometry and qMT parameters with myelin content. The combined results suggest that the macromolecular pool interacting with water consists of myelin and (less efficient) non-myelin contributions. Despite strong correlation of ℱ and none of these parameters was uniquely specific to myelination. Due to additional sensitivity to iron stores, and were more sensitive for depicting microstructural differences between cortical layers than ℱ. Highlights MRI (200μm) is correlated with myelin and iron histology in fixed marmoset brain. Detailed z -spectra are employed for precise magnetization-transfer (MT) measurements. Longitudinal and effective transverse relaxation rates depend linearly on tissue iron. Longitudinal relaxation and MT are not uniquely specific to myelin. Myelin and non-myelin macromolecules impact water relaxation and MT contrast.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".