MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What can computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging tell us about ventilation?

2012· review· en· W96034547 on OpenAlexafffund
Brett A. Simon, David W. Kaczka, Alexander A. Bankier, Grace Párraga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVentilation (architecture)Magnetic resonance imagingComputed tomographyMedicineRadiologyMedical physicsIntensive care medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review provides a summary of pulmonary functional imaging approaches for determining pulmonary ventilation, with a specific focus on multi-detector x-ray computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We provide the important functional definitions of pulmonary ventilation typically used in medicine and physiology and discuss the fact that some of the imaging literature describes gas distribution abnormalities in pulmonary disease that may or may not be related to the physiological definition or clinical interpretation of ventilation. We also review the current state-of-the-field in terms of the key physiological questions yet unanswered related to ventilation and gas distribution in lung disease. Current and emerging imaging research methods are described, including their strengths and the challenges that remain to translate these methods to more wide-spread research and clinical use. We also examine how computed tomography and MRI might be used in the future to gain more insight into gas distribution and ventilation abnormalities in pulmonary disease.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207