Inversion group (IG) fitting: A new T<sub>1</sub> mapping method for modified look‐locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) that allows arbitrary inversion groupings and rest periods (including no rest period)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Modified Look-Locker Inversion Recovery (MOLLI) technique is used for T1 mapping in the heart. However, a drawback of this technique is that it requires lengthy rest periods in between inversion groupings to allow for complete magnetization recovery. In this work, a new MOLLI fitting algorithm (inversion group [IG] fitting) is presented that allows for arbitrary combinations of inversion groupings and rest periods (including no rest period). THEORY AND METHODS: Conventional MOLLI algorithms use a three parameter fitting model. In IG fitting, the number of parameters is two plus the number of inversion groupings. This increased number of parameters permits any inversion grouping/rest period combination. Validation was performed through simulation, phantom, and in vivo experiments. RESULTS: IG fitting provided T1 values with less than 1% discrepancy across a range of inversion grouping/rest period combinations. By comparison, conventional three parameter fits exhibited up to 30% discrepancy for some combinations. The one drawback with IG fitting was a loss of precision-approximately 30% worse than the three parameter fits. CONCLUSION: IG fitting permits arbitrary inversion grouping/rest period combinations (including no rest period). The cost of the algorithm is a loss of precision relative to conventional three parameter fits. Magn Reson Med 75:2332-2340, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
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".