Intraoperative use of low-field magnetic resonance imaging for brain tumors: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Low-field magnetic resonance imaging (LF-MRI) has become a valuable tool in the diagnosis of brain tumors due to its high spatial resolution and ability to acquire images in a short amount of time. However, the use of LF-MRI for intraoperative imaging during brain tumor surgeries has not been extensively studied. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the impact of low-field intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (LF-IMRI) on the duration of brain tumor surgery and the extent of tumor resection. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar from February 2000 to December 2022. The studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria and reviewed independently by two reviewers. The gathered information was organized and analyzed using Excel. Results: Our review of 21 articles found that low-field intraoperative MRI (LF-IMRI) with a field below 0.3T was used in most of the studies, specifically 15 studies used 0.15T LF-IMRI. The T1-weighted sequence was the most frequently reported, and the average scanning time was 24.26 min. The majority of the studies reported a positive impact of LF-IMRI on the extent of tumor resection, with an increase ranging from 11% to 52.5%. Notably, there were no studies describing the use of ultra-low-field (ULF) intraoperative MRI. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review will aid neurosurgeons and neuroradiologists in making informed decisions about the use of LF-MRI in brain tumor surgeries. Further, research is needed to fully understand the impact of LF-MRI in brain tumor surgeries and to optimize its use in the clinical setting. There is an opportunity to study the utility of ULF-MRI in brain tumor surgeries.
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 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".