Voxel-Wise Comparison of Co-Registered Quantitative CT and Hyperpolarised Gas Diffusion-Weighted MRI Measurements in IPF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The patterns of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) lung disease that directly correspond to elevated hyperpolarised gas diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI metrics are currently unknown. This study aims to develop a spatial co-registration framework for a voxel-wise comparison of hyperpolarised gas DW-MRI and CALIPER quantitative CT patterns. Sixteen IPF patients underwent 3He DW-MRI and CT at baseline, and eleven patients had a 1-year follow-up DW-MRI. Six healthy volunteers underwent 129Xe DW-MRI at baseline only. Moreover, 3He DW-MRI was indirectly co-registered to CT via spatially aligned 3He ventilation and structural 1H MRI. A voxel-wise comparison of the overlapping 3He apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and mean acinar dimension (LmD) maps with CALIPER CT patterns was performed at baseline and after 1 year. The abnormal lung percentage classified with the LmD value, based on a healthy volunteer 129Xe LmD, and CALIPER was compared with a Bland–Altman analysis. The largest DW-MRI metrics were found in the regions classified as honeycombing, and longitudinal DW-MRI changes were observed in the baseline-classified reticular changes and ground-glass opacities regions. A mean bias of −15.3% (95% interval −56.8% to 26.2%) towards CALIPER was observed for the abnormal lung percentage. This suggests DW-MRI may detect microstructural changes in areas of the lung that are determined visibly and quantitatively normal by CT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".