Erratum to “First in‐human evaluation of [1‐ <scp> <sup>13</sup> C </scp> ]pyruvate in <scp> D <sub>2</sub> O </scp> for hyperpolarized <scp>MRI</scp> of the brain: A safety and feasibility study”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kofi Deh, K, Zhang, G, Park, AH, et al. First in-human evaluation of [1-13C]pyruvate in D2O for hyperpolarized MRI of the brain: a safety and feasibility study. Magn Reson Med 2024; 91: 2559–2567. In the article entitled “First in-human evaluation of [1-13C]pyruvate in D2O for hyperpolarized MRI of the brain: A safety and feasibility study”, the authors stated that five volunteers were imaged; however, Figures 3 and 4 show data from only four subjects. One volunteer's data was omitted from the analysis because of the premature termination of the acquisition due to a loose cable. The inclusion of the partial data does not change the conclusion of the article. We apologize for not mentioning this in the original manuscript. Additionally, here, we clarify study details not fully described in the original manuscript. The study was compared between two sites using the same imaging protocol for phantom tests and human studies. Ethics at site 2 was approved by the Sunnybrook Research Ethics Board and by Health Canada as a Clinical Trail Application.1 The coil setup at site 2 used an 8-rung low-pass birdcage for 13C, interchanged with an 8-channel in vivo head coil.1 SNR differences between two sites were because of the use of different coils, confirmed by phantom studies, which contributed to the failure to detect bicarbonate at site 1, whereas site 2 successfully detected it.1 T1 estimates of the pyruvate sample were performed using a multi-nuclear spectroscopy software (GE Healthcare, NY), with a sequence using a 2D spectral-spatial excitation pulse and single-shot spiral readout. These clarifications do not impact the conclusions of the study, and we apologize for any confusion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.018 |
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".