MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1863797586 · doi:10.1002/mrm.24765

Background field removal using spherical mean value filtering and Tikhonov regularization

2013· article· en· W1863797586 on OpenAlexafffund
Hongfu Sun, Alan H. Wilman

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTikhonov regularizationQuantitative susceptibility mappingRegularization (linguistics)Artifact (error)DeconvolutionSpherical harmonicsHarmonic meanMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceAlgorithmNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsMathematical analysisMagnetic resonance imagingInverse problemStatisticsRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To introduce a new method for removing background artifacts in field maps and apply it to enhance the accuracy of susceptibility mapping. METHODS: A field artifact removal method is introduced that is based on the sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (SHARP) method exploiting the harmonic mean value property. The new method uses Tikhonov regularization at the deconvolution stage and is referred to as regularization enabled SHARP (RESHARP). RESHARP was compared with SHARP in a field-forward susceptibility simulation and in human brain experiments, considering effects on both field maps and the resulting susceptibility maps. RESULTS: From the simulation, RESHARP was able to reduce error in the field map by 17.4% as compared with SHARP, resulting in a more accurate single-angle susceptibility map with 6.5% relative error (compared with 48.5% using SHARP). Using RESHARP in vivo, field and susceptibility maps of the brain displayed fewer artifacts particularly at the brain boundaries, and susceptibility measurements of iron-rich deep gray matter were also more consistent than SHARP across healthy subjects of similar age. CONCLUSION: Compared with SHARP, RESHARP removes background field artifact more effectively, leading to more accurate susceptibility measurements in iron-rich deep gray matter.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations184
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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