Inter‐ and intravisit repeatability of <scp>free‐breathing</scp> MRI in pediatric cystic fibrosis lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to assess the intra‐ and interscan repeatability of free‐breathing phase‐resolved functional lung (PREFUL) MRI in stable pediatric cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease in comparison to static breath‐hold hyperpolarized 129‐xenon MRI (Xe‐MRI) and pulmonary function tests. Methods Free‐breathing 1‐hydrogen MRI and Xe‐MRI were acquired from 15 stable pediatric CF patients and seven healthy age‐matched participants on two visits, 1 month apart. Same‐visit MRI scans were also performed on a subgroup of the CF patients. Following the PREFUL algorithm, regional ventilation (RVent) and regional flow volume loop cross‐correlation maps were determined from the free‐breathing data. Ventilation defect percentage (VDP) was determined from RVent maps (VDP RVent ), regional flow volume loop cross‐correlation maps (VDP CC ), VDP RVent ∪ VDP CC , and multi‐slice Xe‐MRI. Repeatability was evaluated using Bland–Altman analysis, coefficient of repeatability (CR), and intraclass correlation. Results Minimal bias and no significant differences were reported for all PREFUL MRI and Xe‐MRI VDP parameters between intra‐ and intervisits (all P > 0.05). Repeatability of VDP RVent , VDP CC , VDP RVent ∪ VDP CC , and multi‐slice Xe‐MRI were lower between the two‐visit scans (CR = 14.81%, 15.36%, 16.19%, and 9.32%, respectively) in comparison to the same‐day scans (CR = 3.38%, 2.90%, 1.90%, and 3.92%, respectively). pulmonary function tests showed high interscan repeatability relative to PREFUL MRI and Xe‐MRI. Conclusion PREFUL MRI, similar to Xe‐MRI, showed high intravisit repeatability but moderate intervisit repeatability in CF, which may be due to inherent disease instability, even in stable patients. Thus, PREFUL MRI may be considered a suitable outcome measure for future treatment response studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".