MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387893440 · doi:10.1177/15330338231208613

Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer MRI: What Neuro-Oncology Clinicians Need To Know

2023· review· en· W4387893440 on OpenAlexafffund
Pejman Maralani, Rachel W. Chan, Wilfred Lam, Wendy Oakden, Ryan T. Oglesby, Angus Lau, Hatef Mehrabian, Chris Heyn, Aimee Chan, Hany Soliman, Arjun Sahgal, Greg J. Stanisz

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology in Cancer Research & Treatment · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedical physicsMagnetic resonance imagingWorkflowComputer scienceGadoliniumMedicineNuclear magnetic resonanceRadiologyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) is a relatively novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique with an image contrast designed for in vivo measurement of certain endogenous molecules with protons that are exchangeable with water protons, such as amide proton transfer commonly used for neuro-oncology applications. Recent technological advances have made it feasible to implement CEST on clinical grade scanners within practical acquisition times, creating new opportunities to integrate CEST in clinical workflow. In addition, the majority of CEST applications used in neuro-oncology are performed without the use gadolinium-based contrast agents which are another appealing feature of this technique. This review is written for clinicians involved in neuro-oncologic care (nonphysicists) as the target audience explaining what they need to know as CEST makes its way into practice. The purpose of this article is to (1) review the basic physics and technical principles of CEST MRI, and (2) review the practical applications of CEST in neuro-oncology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology in Cancer Research & TreatmentSame topicLanthanide and Transition Metal ComplexesFrench-language works237,207