MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988821523 · doi:10.1002/mrm.21901

Optimal <i>k</i>‐space sampling for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI with an application to MR renography

2009· article· en· W1988821523 on OpenAlexaff
Ting Song, Andrew F. Laine, Qun Chen, Henry Rusinek, Louisa Bokacheva, Ruth Lim, Gerhard Laub, Randall Kroeker, Vivian S. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsSiemens (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsUndersamplingImaging phantomDynamic contrast-enhanced MRIFlip angleTemporal resolutionMagnetic resonance imagingSIGNAL (programming language)Sampling (signal processing)Nuclear medicineMathematicsComputer sciencePhysicsNuclear magnetic resonanceMaterials scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceRadiologyComputer visionOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For time-resolved acquisitions with k-space undersampling, a simulation method was developed for selecting imaging parameters based on minimization of errors in signal intensity versus time and physiologic parameters derived from tracer kinetic analysis. Optimization was performed for time-resolved angiography with stochastic trajectories (TWIST) algorithm applied to contrast-enhanced MR renography. A realistic 4D phantom comprised of aorta and two kidneys, one healthy and one diseased, was created with ideal tissue time-enhancement pattern generated using a three-compartment model with fixed parameters, including glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and renal plasma flow (RPF). TWIST acquisitions with different combinations of sampled central and peripheral k-space portions were applied to this phantom. Acquisition performance was assessed by the difference between simulated signal intensity (SI) and calculated GFR and RPF and their ideal values. Sampling of the 20% of the center and 1/5 of the periphery of k-space in phase-encoding plane and data-sharing of the remaining 4/5 minimized the errors in SI (<5%), RPF, and GFR (both <10% for both healthy and diseased kidneys). High-quality dynamic human images were acquired with optimal TWIST parameters and 2.4 sec temporal resolution. The proposed method can be generalized to other dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI applications, e.g., MR angiography or cancer imaging.

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)0.002
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations126
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207