MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986061044 · doi:10.1002/mrm.21711

Free‐breathing cine MRI

2008· article· en· W1986061044 on OpenAlexaff
Angela O. Leung, D. Ian Paterson, Richard B. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreathingCartesian coordinate systemComputer scienceNuclear medicineMagnetic resonance imagingComputer visionMotion (physics)Standard deviationArtificial intelligenceBiomedical engineeringMedicineMathematicsRadiologyAnatomyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard MRI cine exams for the study of cardiac function are segmented over several heartbeats and thus require a breath-hold to minimize breathing motion artifacts, which is a current limitation of this approach. The purpose of this study was to develop a method for the measurement and correction of respiratory motion that is compatible with cine imaging. Real-time images were used to measure the respiratory motion of heart, to allow translations, rotations, and shears to be measured and corrected in the k-space domain prior to a final gated-segmented reconstruction, using the same data for both purposes. A method for data rejection to address the effects of through-plane motion and complex deformations is described (respiratory gating). A radial k-space trajectory was used in this study to allow direct reconstruction of undersampled real-time images, although the techniques presented are applicable with Cartesian k-space trajectories. Corrected and uncorrected free-breathing gated-segmented images acquired over 18 sec were compared to the current standard breath-hold Cartesian images using both quantitative sharpness profiles (mm(-1)) and clinical scoring (1 to 5 scale, 3: clinically acceptable). Free-breathing, free-breathing corrected, and breath-hold images had average sharpness values of 0.23 +/- 0.04, 0.38 +/- 0.04, and 0.44 +/- 0.04 mm(-1) measured at the blood-endocardium interface, and clinical scores of 2.2 +/- 0.5, 4.2 +/- 0.4, and 4.7 +/- 0.5, respectively.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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