MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406152561 · doi:10.1002/mrm.30415

Noninvasive blood–brain barrier integrity mapping in patients with high‐grade glioma and metastasis by multi–echo time–encoded arterial spin labeling

2025· article· en· W4406152561 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gabriel Hoffmann, Christine Preibisch, Matthias Günther, Amnah Mahroo, Matthias J.P. van Osch, Lena Václavů, Marie‐Christin Metz, Kirsten Jung, Claus Zimmer, Benedikt Wiestler, Stephan Kaczmarz

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVlaamse regeringNorges ForskningsrådTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEvangelisches Studienwerk VilligstMinisterie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en SportBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungZonMwDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean CommissionAlzheimer NederlandEU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease ResearchNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekPhilips
KeywordsEx vivoMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineBlood–brain barrierBrain metastasisMalignancyGliomaNuclear medicinePathologyMetastasisCentral nervous systemRadiologyCancerInternal medicineBiologyCancer researchIn vivo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose In brain tumors, disruption of the blood–brain barrier (BBB) indicates malignancy. Clinical assessment is qualitative; quantitative evaluation is feasible using the K 2 leakage parameter from dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. However, contrast agent–based techniques are limited in patients with renal dysfunction and insensitive to subtle impairments. Assessing water transport times across the BBB ( T ex ) by multi‐echo arterial spin labeling promises to detect BBB impairments noninvasively and potentially more sensitively. We hypothesized that reduced T ex indicates impaired BBB. Furthermore, we assumed higher sensitivity for T ex than dynamic susceptibility contrast–based K 2 , because arterial spin labeling uses water as a freely diffusible tracer. Methods We acquired 3T MRI data from 28 patients with intraparenchymal brain tumors (World Health Organization Grade 3 & 4 gliomas [ n = 17] or metastases [ n = 11]) and 17 age‐matched healthy controls. The protocol included multi‐echo and single‐echo Hadamard‐encoded arterial spin labeling, dynamic susceptibility contrast, and conventional clinical imaging. T ex was calculated using a T 2 ‐dependent multi‐compartment model. Areas of contrast‐enhancing tissue, edema, and normal‐appearing tissue were automatically segmented, and parameter values were compared across volumes of interest and between patients and healthy controls. Results T ex was significantly reduced (−20.3%) in contrast‐enhancing tissue compared with normal‐appearing gray matter and correlated well with | K 2 | ( r = −0.347). Compared with healthy controls, T ex was significantly lower in tumor patients' normal‐appearing gray matter ( T ex,tumor = 0.141 ± 0.032 s vs. T ex,HC = 0.172 ± 0.036 s) and normal‐appearing white matter ( T ex,tumor = 0.116 ± 0.015 vs. T ex,HC = 0.127 ± 0.017 s), whereas | K 2 | did not differ significantly. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed a larger area under the curve for T ex (0.784) than K 2 (0.604). Conclusion T ex is sensitive to pathophysiologically impaired BBB. It agrees with contrast agent–based K 2 in contrast‐enhancing tissue and indicates sensitivity to subtle leakage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207