MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1644259399 · doi:10.1002/mrm.24923

Max‐IDEAL: A max‐flow based approach for IDEAL water/fat separation

2013· article· en· W1644259399 on OpenAlexafffund
A Soliman, Jing Yuan, Karl K. Vigen, James A. White, Terry M. Peters, Charles A. McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Ideal (ethics)Computer scienceSeparation (statistics)VisualizationAlgorithmConformal mapMathematicsArtificial intelligenceChemistryMachine learningMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To propose a novel approach to water/fat separation using a unique smoothness constraint. THEORY AND METHODS: Chemical-shift based water/fat separation is an established noninvasive imaging tool for the visualization of body fat in various anatomies. Nevertheless, B0 magnetic field inhomogeneities can hamper the water/fat separation process. In this work, B0 variations are mapped using a convex-relaxed labeling model which produces a coarse estimate of the field map, while considering T2* decay during the labeling process. Fat and water components are subsequently resolved using T2*-IDEAL. An adaptive spatial filtering (ASF) was introduced to improve the robustness of the estimate. The method was tested on cardiac and abdominal datasets from healthy volunteers and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients. RESULTS: Out of 168 cardiac and abdominal images, only 1 case has shown water/fat swaps that can hinder the clinical interpretation of the underlying anatomy. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates a new water/fat separation approach that prevents the occurrence of water/fat swaps, by means of a unique smoothness constraint. Incorporating T2* effect in the labeling procedure and including the ASF processing enhance the robustness of the proposed approach and permit the procedure to handle abrupt B0 variations within the field of view.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207