Bringing MRI to low‐ and middle‐income countries: Directions, challenges and potential solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global disparity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a major challenge, with many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experiencing limited access to MRI. The reasons for limited access are technological, economic and social. With the advancement of MRI technology, we explore why these challenges still prevail, highlighting the importance of MRI as the epidemiology of disease changes in LMICs. In this paper, we establish a framework to develop MRI with these challenges in mind and discuss the different aspects of MRI development, including maximising image quality using cost-effective components, integrating local technology and infrastructure and implementing sustainable practices. We also highlight the current solutions-including teleradiology, artificial intelligence and doctor and patient education strategies-and how these might be further improved to achieve greater access to MRI.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".