MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412084516 · doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000001206

Current Research and Development in the Field of Magnetic Resonance Contrast Media

2025· article· en· W4412084516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Val M. Runge

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Radiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadoliniumMagnetic resonance imagingContrast (vision)MedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceRadiologyMaterials scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The next-generation, high relaxivity, gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are discussed, together with new studies of safety, improvements in MR technique, and the ongoing development of additional agents. It is likely that the next generation agents, gadopiclenol and gadoquatrane, will largely replace the current standards, the macrocyclic gadolinium chelates, despite the excellent safety profile and very high stability of the latter. In the Group of Seven (G7) nations, which includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, use of the linear gadolinium chelates has largely ceased, due to concerns regarding their relative instability as compared to the macrocyclic agents and the deposition of gadolinium that occurs in many tissues, including brain and bone, following their injection. Manganese-based compounds are once again being investigated, a field largely untouched since the initial development of clinical MR contrast media in the 1980s. Their potential impact on clinical imaging is, however, unclear. New information continues to emerge regarding differences in stability of the gadolinium-based agents. Artificial intelligence and deep learning techniques are maturing and are discussed briefly, given their potential and recent clinical application involving MR contrast media.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative RadiologySame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207