MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366225276 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2023.1132077

Imaging blood-brain barrier dysfunction: A state-of-the-art review from a clinical perspective

2023· review· en· W4366225276 on OpenAlexaff
Paulien Moyaert, Beatriz Padrela, Catherine Morgan, Jan Petr, Jan Versijpt, Frederik Barkhof, Michael T. Jurkiewicz, Xingfeng Shao, Olujide Oyeniran, Tabitha Manson, Danny J.J. Wang, Matthias Günther, Eric Achten, Henk Mutsaerts, Udunna Anazodo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalWestern UniversityLawson Health Research Institute
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsNeuroscienceBlood–brain barrierBiomarkerMedicineMolecular imagingNeuroimagingNeuroinflammationDiseaseBioinformaticsPathologyPsychologyCentral nervous systemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) consists of specialized cells that tightly regulate the in- and outflow of molecules from the blood to brain parenchyma, protecting the brain's microenvironment. If one of the BBB components starts to fail, its dysfunction can lead to a cascade of neuroinflammatory events leading to neuronal dysfunction and degeneration. Preliminary imaging findings suggest that BBB dysfunction could serve as an early diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for a number of neurological diseases. This review aims to provide clinicians with an overview of the emerging field of BBB imaging in humans by answering three key questions: (1. Disease) In which diseases could BBB imaging be useful? (2. Device) What are currently available imaging methods for evaluating BBB integrity? And (3. Distribution) what is the potential of BBB imaging in different environments, particularly in resource limited settings? We conclude that further advances are needed, such as the validation, standardization and implementation of readily available, low-cost and non-contrast BBB imaging techniques, for BBB imaging to be a useful clinical biomarker in both resource-limited and well-resourced settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicLanthanide and Transition Metal ComplexesFrench-language works237,207