Blood-pool MRI assessment of myocardial microvascular reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The ability to non-invasively image myocardial microvascular dilation and constriction is essential to assessing intact function and dysfunction. Yet, conventional measurements based on blood oxygenation are not specific to changes in blood volume. The purpose of this study was to extend to the heart a blood-pool MRI approach for assessing vasomodulation in the presence of blood gas changes and investigate if sex-related differences exist. Methods Animals [five male and five female healthy Sprague Dawley rats (200–500 g)] were intubated, ventilated, and cycled through room air (normoxia) and hypercapnia (10% CO2) in 10-minute cycles after i.v. injection of blood-pool agent Ablavar (0.3 mmol/kg). Pre-contrast T1 maps and T1-weighted 3D CINE were acquired on a 3 Tesla preclinical MRI scanner, followed by repeated 3D CINE every 5 min until the end of the gas regime. Invasive laser Doppler flowmetry of myocardial perfusion was performed to corroborate MRI results. Results Myocardial microvascular dilation to hypercapnia and constriction to normoxia were readily visualized on T1 maps. Over 10 min of hypercapnia, female myocardial T1 reduced by 20% (vasodilation), while no significant change was observed in the male myocardium. After return to normoxia, myocardial T1 increased (vasoconstriction) in both sexes (18% in females and 16% in males). Laser Doppler perfusion measurements confirmed vasomodulatory responses observed on MRI. Conclusion Blood-pool MRI is sensitive and specific to vasomodulation in the myocardial microcirculation. Sex-related differences exist in the healthy myocardium in response to mild hypercapnic stimuli.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".