Blood-pool contrast agent for pre-clinical computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2017 SPIE. Advances in nanotechnology have led to the development of blood-pool contrast agents for micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Although long-circulating nanoparticle-based agents exist for micro-CT, they are predominantly based on iodine, which has a low atomic number. Micro-CT contrast increases when using elements with higher atomic numbers (i.e. lanthanides), particularly at higher energies. The purpose of our work was to develop and evaluate a lanthanide-based blood-pool contrast agent that is suitable for in vivo micro-CT. We synthesized a contrast agent in the form of polymer-encapsulated Gd nanoparticles and evaluated its stability in vitro. The synthesized nanoparticles were shown to have an average diameter of 127 ± 6 nm, with good size dispersity. Particle size distribution - evaluated by dynamic light scattering over the period of two days - demonstrated no change in size of the contrast agent in water and saline. Additionally, our contrast agent was stable in a mouse serum mimic for up to 30 minutes. CT images of the synthesized contrast agent (containing 27 mg/mL of Gd) demonstrated an attenuation of over 1000 Hounsfield Units. This approach to synthesizing a Gd-based blood-pool contrast agent promises to enhance the capabilities of micro-CT imaging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".