Comparison of sampling strategies and sparsifying transforms to improve compressed sensing diffusion spectrum imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diffusion Spectrum Imaging enables to reconstruct the ensemble average propagator (EAP) at the expense of having to acquire a large number of measurements. Compressive sensing offers an efficient way to decrease the required number of measurements. The purpose of this work is to perform a thorough experimental comparison of three sampling strategies and six sparsifying transforms to show their impact when applied to accelerate compressive sensing-diffusion spectrum imaging. METHODS: We propose a novel sampling scheme that assures uniform angular and random radial q-space samples. We also compare and implement six discrete sparse representations of the EAP and thoroughly evaluate them on synthetic and real data using metrics from the full EAP, kurtosis, and orientation distribution function. RESULTS: The discrete wavelet transform with Cohen-Daubechies-Feauveau 9/7 wavelets and uniform angular sampling in combination with random radial sampling showed to be better than other tested techniques to accurately reconstruct the EAP and its features. CONCLUSION: It is important to jointly optimize the sampling scheme and the sparsifying transform to obtain accelerated compressive sensing-diffusion spectrum imaging. Experiments on synthetic and real human brain data show that one can robustly recover both radial and angular EAP features while undersampling the acquisition to 64 measurements (undersampling factor of 4).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".