MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408161681 · doi:10.1002/mrm.30435

Considerations and recommendations from the <scp>ISMRM</scp> diffusion study group for preclinical diffusion <scp>MRI</scp> : Part 2—Ex vivo imaging: Added value and acquisition

2025· article· en· W4408161681 on OpenAlexaff
Kurt G. Schilling, Francesco Grussu, Andrada Ianuș, Brian Benjamin Hansen, Amy Howard, Rachel Barrett, Manisha Aggarwal, Stijn Michielse, Fatima Nasrallah, Warda Syeda, Nian Wang, Jelle Veraart, Alard Roebroeck, Andrew F. Bagdasarian, Cornelius Eichner, Farshid Sepehrband, Jan Zimmermann, Lucas Soustelle, Christien Bowman, Benjamin C. Tendler, Andreea Hertanu, Ben Jeurissen, Marleen Verhoye, Lucio Frydman, Yohan van de Looij, David Hike, Jeff F. Dunn, Karla L. Miller, Bennett A. Landman, Noam Shemesh, Adam W. Anderson, Emilie T. McKinnon, Shawna Farquharson, Flavio Dell’Acqua, Carlo Pierpaoli, Ivana Drobnjak, Alexander Leemans, Kevin D. Harkins, Maxime Descoteaux, Xu Duan, Hao Huang, Mathieu Santin, Samuel C. Grant, André Obenaus, Gene S. Kim, Dan Wu, Denis Le Bihan, Stephen J. Blackband, Luisa Ciobanu, Els Fieremans, Ruiliang Bai, Trygve B. Leergaard, Jiangyang Zhang, Tim B. Dyrby, G. Allan Johnson, Julien Cohen‐Adad, Matthew D. Budde, Ileana Jelescu

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique MontréalHotchkiss Brain InstituteMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute on AgingNational Cancer InstituteGeneralitat de CatalunyaNational Institutes of HealthVlaamse regeringFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringWellcome Trust
KeywordsEx vivoDiffusionIn vivoDiffusion MRIDiffusion imagingChemistryNuclear magnetic resonanceMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineMedicineIn vitroPhysicsBiochemistryBiologyRadiologyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The value of preclinical diffusion MRI (dMRI) is substantial. While dMRI enables in vivo non-invasive characterization of tissue, ex vivo dMRI is increasingly being used to probe tissue microstructure and brain connectivity. Ex vivo dMRI has several experimental advantages including higher SNR and spatial resolution compared to in vivo studies, and enabling more advanced diffusion contrasts for improved microstructure and connectivity characterization. Another major advantage of ex vivo dMRI is the direct comparison with histological data, as a crucial methodological validation. However, there are a number of considerations that must be made when performing ex vivo experiments. The steps from tissue preparation, image acquisition and processing, and interpretation of results are complex, with many decisions that not only differ dramatically from in vivo imaging of small animals, but ultimately affect what questions can be answered using the data. This work represents "Part 2" of a three-part series of recommendations and considerations for preclinical dMRI. We describe best practices for dMRI of ex vivo tissue, with a focus on the value that ex vivo imaging adds to the field of dMRI and considerations in ex vivo image acquisition. We first give general considerations and foundational knowledge that must be considered when designing experiments. We briefly describe differences in specimens and models and discuss why some may be more or less appropriate for different studies. We then give guidelines for ex vivo protocols, including tissue fixation, sample preparation, and MR scanning. In each section, we attempt to provide guidelines and recommendations, but also highlight areas for which no guidelines exist (and why), and where future work should lie. An overarching goal herein is to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of ex vivo dMRI acquisitions and analyses, and thereby advance biomedical knowledge.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0110.005
Research integrity0.0250.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.044

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207