MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1819694356 · doi:10.1002/cmr.a.21290

Image‐based method to measure and characterize shim‐induced eddy current fields

2013· article· en· W1819694356 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alex A. Bhogal, Maarten J. Versluis, Jos Koonen, Jeroen C.W. Siero, Vincent O. Boer, Dennis W. J. Klomp, Peter R. Luijten, Hans Hoogduin

Bibliographic record

VenueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsShim (computing)Measure (data warehouse)Eddy currentCurrent (fluid)AcousticsPhysicsComputer scienceEngineeringData miningElectrical engineeringPsychologyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Dynamic magnetic field shimming is gaining interest for field sensitive MRI acquisitions. Using slice based or real‐time shim updating, significant improvements in static field (B0) uniformity can be obtained. While the ability to rapidly switch shim fields can improve overall B0 homogeneity, it induces eddy current fields that must be characterized and compensated for. Methods used to achieve this have thus far been based on linear projection spin echo sequences or field probe assemblies. Here, a novel image‐based method is presented to measure and characterize eddy current fields without the need for field probes or projection based measurements. This technique can be extended to characterize very high order spherical harmonic fields, making it a useful tool to calibrate next‐generation shim systems implementing dynamic field steering with greater than third order shim terms. Results are used to calibrate a Dynamic Shim Updating unit for pre‐emphasis and eddy current compensation. Three‐dimensional datasets are acquired at multiple MR facilities containing complete spatiotemporal field information to compensate eddy current field self‐ and cross‐terms for up to third order. Furthermore, simulation studies are performed to investigate the effect of scan resolution and phantom size with respect to accurate eddy current field characterization. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Concepts Magn Reson Part A 42A: 245–260, 2013.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part ASame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207