Inter-user comparison for quantification of superparamagnetic iron oxides with magnetic particle imaging across two institutions highlights a need for standardized approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Magnetic particle imaging (MPI) is being explored in biological contexts that require accurate and reproducible quantification of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs). While many groups have focused on improving imager and SPION design to improve resolution and sensitivity, few have focused on improving quantification and reproducibility of MPI. The aim of this study was to compare MPI quantification results by two different systems and the accuracy of SPION quantification performed by multiple users at two institutions. Procedures: Six users (3 from each institute) imaged a known amount of Vivotrax+ (10 μg Fe), diluted in a small (10 μL) or large (500 μL) volume. These samples were imaged with or without calibration standards in the field of view, to create a total of 72 images (6 users x triplicate samples x 2 sample volumes x 2 calibration methods). These images were analyzed by the respective user with two region of interest (ROI) selection methods. Image intensities, Vivotrax+ quantification, and ROI selection was compared across users, within and across institutions. Results: MPI imagers at two different institutes produce significantly different signal intensities, that differ by over 3 times for the same concentration of Vivotrax+. Overall quantification yielded measurements that were within ± 20% from ground truth, however SPION quantification values obtained at each laboratory were significantly different. Results suggest that the use of different imagers had a stronger influence on SPION quantification compared to differences arising from user error. Lastly, calibration conducted from samples in the imaging field of view gave the same quantification results as separately imaged samples. Conclusions: This study highlights that there are many factors that contribute to the accuracy and reproducibility of MPI quantification, including variation between MPI imagers and users, despite pre-defined experimental set up, image acquisition parameters, and ROI selection analysis.
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 | 0.084 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".