MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006914139 · doi:10.1002/cmr.b.20178

Finite‐length shim coil design using a fourier series minimum inductance and minimum power algorithm

2010· article· en· W2006914139 on OpenAlexaff
Parisa Hudson, Stephen D. Hudson, William B. Handler, Blaine A. Chronik

Bibliographic record

VenueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part B · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsShim (computing)Fourier seriesInductanceElectromagnetic coilAlgorithmFourier transformFourier analysisSeries (stratigraphy)MathematicsComputer scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High field magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and spectroscopy are sensitive to magnetic field inhomogeneities caused by susceptibility differences between tissues, bone, and air. These inhomogeneities cause MR image artifacts and line broadening in MR spectra. To correct for these inhomogeneities, specialized shim coils are used in combination with the usual gradient systems. To produce realistic coils for use in human or small‐animal studies, direct control over the length of the coils is necessary. In this article, a simple method for the design of shim coils of arbitrary order and with predetermined length is presented. The method is based on a simple Fourier series expansion of the current density and either power or inductance can be minimized subject to a series of field constraints. The method is mathematically simple, easy to implement and computationally fast. A quantitative comparison of figures of merit for inductance and resistance was made as a function of shim coil length. Coils of 40 cm diameter were designed with lengths of 50, 60, 80, and 100 cm. Comparison of results obtained using the two design methods across all shim axes and coil lengths indicate very little performance difference between the two methods. The decreased complexity of the minimum power designs appears to outweigh any small benefits obtainable using the minimum inductance algorithm for the range of coils investigated. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Concepts Magn Reson Part B (Magn Reson Engineering) 37B: 245–253, 2010.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part BSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207