MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971486531 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/16/019

Flip angle optimization for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-studies with spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences

2011· article· en· W1971486531 on OpenAlexaff
Dieter De Naeyer, Jort Verhulst, Wim Ceelen, Patrick Segers, Yves De Deene, P. Verdonck

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlip angleReproducibilityPulse (music)Materials scienceBiomedical engineeringNuclear magnetic resonanceContrast (vision)Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRIBiological systemMathematicsMagnetic resonance imagingPhysicsOpticsStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spoiled gradient echo pulse (SPGRE) sequences are commonly used in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) studies to measure the contrast agent concentration in a tissue of interest over time. However, due to improper tuning of the SPGRE parameters, concentration uncertainty can be very high, even at high signal-to-noise ratio in the MR measurement. In this work, an optimization procedure is proposed for selecting the optimal value of the SPGRE-flip angle FA(opt), given the expected concentration range. The optimization condition ensures that every concentration in the assumed range has the lowest possible uncertainty. By decoupling the R(1)- and R*(2)-effects caused by the presence of the contrast agent, a contour plot has been generated from which FA(opt) can be read off for any study design. Investigation of ten recent DCE-MRI studies showed that improper flip angle selection unnecessarily increases the concentration uncertainty, up to 742% and 72% on average for the typical physiological concentration ranges of 0-2 mM in tumour tissue and 0-10 mM in blood, respectively. Simulations show that the reduced noise levels on the concentration curves, observed at the optimal flip angle, effectively increase the precision of the kinetic parameters estimates (up to 82% for K(trans), 82% for ν(e) and 92% for ν(p) in the case of an individually measured arterial input function (AIF), up to 53% for K(trans), 59% for ν(e) and 67% for ν(p) in the case of a standard AIF). In vivo experiments confirm the potential of flip angle optimization to increase the reproducibility of the kinetic parameter estimates.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207