MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1866157825 · doi:10.1002/mrm.24538

Free‐Breathing 3D Cardiac MRI Using Iterative Image‐Based Respiratory Motion Correction

2012· article· en· W1866157825 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mehdi H. Moghari, Sébastien Roujol, Raymond H. Chan, Susie N. Hong, Natalie A. Bello, Markus Henningsson, Long Ngo, Beth Goddu, Lois Goepfert, Kraig V. Kissinger, Warren J. Manning, Reza Nezafat

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsGatingImage qualityBreathingDiaphragmatic breathingMotion compensationWindow (computing)MedicineComputer scienceNuclear medicineComputer visionBiomedical engineeringImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Respiratory motion compensation using diaphragmatic navigator gating with a 5 mm gating window is conventionally used for free-breathing cardiac MRI. Because of the narrow gating window, scan efficiency is low resulting in long scan times, especially for patients with irregular breathing patterns. In this work, a new retrospective motion compensation algorithm is presented to reduce the scan time for free-breathing cardiac MRI that increasing the gating window to 15 mm without compromising image quality. The proposed algorithm iteratively corrects for respiratory-induced cardiac motion by optimizing the sharpness of the heart. To evaluate this technique, two coronary MRI datasets with 1.3 mm(3) resolution were acquired from 11 healthy subjects (seven females, 25 ± 9 years); one using a navigator with a 5 mm gating window acquired in 12.0 ± 2.0 min and one with a 15 mm gating window acquired in 7.1 ± 1.0 min. The images acquired with a 15 mm gating window were corrected using the proposed algorithm and compared to the uncorrected images acquired with the 5 and 15 mm gating windows. The image quality score, sharpness, and length of the three major coronary arteries were equivalent between the corrected images and the images acquired with a 5 mm gating window (P-value > 0.05), while the scan time was reduced by a factor of 1.7.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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