MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411375898 · doi:10.1002/mrm.30570

Consensus recommendations for hyperpolarized [1‐ <scp> <sup>13</sup> C </scp> ]pyruvate <scp>MRI</scp> multi‐center human studies

2025· article· en· W4411375898 on OpenAlexaff
Shonit Punwani, Peder E. Z. Larson, Christoffer Laustsen, Jan VanderMeulen, Jan Henrik Ardenkjær‐Larsen, Adam W. Autry, James A. Bankson, Jenna Bernard, Robert Bok, Lotte Bonde Bertelsen, Jenny Che, Albert P. Chen, Rafat Chowdhury, Arnaud Comment, Charles H. Cunningham, Duy Dang, Ferdia A. Gallagher, Adam Gaunt, Jeremy W. Gordon, Ashley Grimmer, James T. Grist, Esben Søvsø Szocska Hansen, Mathilde H. Lerche, Richard L. Hesketh, Jan‐Bernd Hoevener, Ching‐Yi Hsieh, Kayvan R. Keshari, Kozerke Sebastian, Titus Lanz, Dirk Mayer, Mary A. McLean, Jae Mo Park, Jim Slater, Damian J. Tyler, Jean‐Luc Vanderheyden, Cornelius von Morze, Fulvio Zaccagna, Vlad G. Zaha, Duan Xu, Daniel B. Vigneron

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced NMR Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthChang Gung Medical FoundationEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAarhus UniversitetCancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas
KeywordsComputer scienceCalibrationCalibration curveMedical physicsQuality assuranceNuclear medicineMedicineNuclear magnetic resonanceComputational biologyChemistryPhysicsStatisticsMathematicsBiologyPathologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract MRI of hyperpolarized (HP) [1‐ 13 C]pyruvate allows in vivo assessment of metabolism and has translated into human studies across diseases at 15 centers worldwide. To determine consensus on best practice for multi‐center studies for development of clinical applications. This paper presents the results of a two‐round formal consensus building exercise carried out by experts with HP [1‐ 13 C]pyruvate human study experience. Twenty‐nine participants from 13 sites brought together expertise in pharmacy methods, MR physics, translational imaging, and data analysis with the goal of providing recommendations and best practice statements on conduct of multi‐center human studies of HP [1‐ 13 C]pyruvate MRI. Overall, the group reached consensus on approximately two‐thirds of 246 statements in the questionnaire, covering HP 13 C‐pyruvate preparation; MRI system setup, calibration, and phantoms; acquisition and reconstruction; and data analysis and quantification. Consensus was present across categories. Examples include: (i) Different HP pyruvate preparation methods could be used in human studies, but the same release criteria have to be followed; (ii) site qualification and quality assurance must be performed with phantoms and the same field strength must be used, but the rest of the system setup and calibration methods could be determined by individual sites; (iii) the same pulse sequence and reconstruction methods were preferable, but the exact choice should be governed by the anatomical target; (iv) normalized metabolite area‐under‐curve values and metabolite area under curve were the preferred metabolism metrics. The consensus proces revealed that HP[1‐ 13 C] pyruvate MRI as a technology has progressed sufficiently to plan multi‐center studies. The work confirmed areas of consensus for multi‐center study conduct and identified where further research is required to ascertain best practice.

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)0.522
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.546
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5220.546
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0190.020
Research integrity0.0190.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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