Nonaqueous magnetization following adiabatic and selective pulses in brain: T1 and cross‐relaxation dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inversion pulses are commonly employed in MRI for ‐weighted contrast and relaxation measurements. In the brain, it is often assumed that adiabatic pulses saturate the nonaqueous magnetization. We investigated this assumption using solid‐state NMR to monitor the nonaqueous signal directly following adiabatic inversion and compared this with signals following hard and soft inversion pulses. The effects of the different preparations on relaxation dynamics were explored. Inversion recovery experiments were performed on ex vivo bovine and porcine brains using 360‐MHz (8.4 T) and 200‐MHz (4.7 T) NMR spectrometers, respectively, using broadband rectangular, adiabatic, and sinc inversion pulses as well as a long rectangular saturation pulse. Analogous human brain MRI experiments were performed at 3 T using single‐slice echo‐planar imaging. Relaxation data were fitted by mono‐ and biexponential decay models. Further fitting analysis was performed using only two inversion delay times. Adiabatic and sinc inversion left much of the nonaqueous magnetization along and resulted in biexponential relaxation. Saturation of both aqueous and nonaqueous magnetization components led to effectively monoexponential relaxation. Typical adiabatic inversion pulses do not, as has been widely assumed, saturate the nonaqueous proton magnetization in white matter. Unequal magnetization states in aqueous and nonaqueous 1 H reservoirs prepared by soft and adiabatic pulses result in biexponential relaxation. Both pools must be prepared in the same magnetization state (e.g., saturated or inverted) in order to observe consistent monoexponential relaxation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".