MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405247101 · doi:10.18805/ijar.b-5448

Quantification of Doppler Indices, Contrast Ultrasound Enhancement Phases and Perfusion Parameters of Splenic Parenchyma in Healthy Dogs

2024· article· en· W4405247101 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tarundeep Singh, Pallavi Verma, J. Mohindroo, Tarunbir Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Animal Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndian Council of Agricultural Research
KeywordsMedicineContrast-enhanced ultrasoundPerfusionUltrasoundMicrobubblesNuclear medicineRadiologyParenchymaUltrasonographySplenic arteryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The spleen can be affected by a variety of vascular problems. Affected tissue neovascularization in these conditions can be effectively analysed using imaging modalities such as Doppler and contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS). Methods: Nine healthy dogs were included in this clinical study comprising two breeds of Labrador Retrievers, German Shepherds, and Beagles and one breed each of Crossbred, Pug, and Pitbulls. Pulsed-wave Doppler indices and contrast-enhanced perfusion parameters of the splenic vasculature were obtained by performing spectral Doppler sonography and CEUS using a second-generation ultrasound contrast agent (Sonovue). Result: The mean ± SE value of splenic vein’s Doppler indices were 10.94±2.04 cm/s (PSV), 6.92±1.28 cm/s (EDV), 6.44±1.57 cm/s (MV), 0.35±0.05 (RI) and 0.75±0.17 (PI), while the indices of splenic artery were 31.21±3.12 cm/s (PSV), 8.95±1.63 cm/s (EDV), 13.98±1.95 cm/s (MV), 0.71±0.04 (RI), 1.75± 0.24 (PI). Arterial and venous phases were visible on a CEUS of the splenic parenchyma. The mean ± SE value of the contrast enhanced splenic perfusion parameters (measured in seconds) were as follows: arrival time = 7.00 ± 0.33; time to initial peak = 15.05 ± 0.46; time to final peak = 28.92±1.06; decline time = 97.89±2.82; washout time = 152.22± 9.10.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Animal ResearchSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207