MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009603062 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2013.6637799

Exploiting sparsity and rank-deficiency in dynamic MRI reconstruction

2013· article· en· W2009603062 on OpenAlexafffund
Angshul Majumdar, Rabab Ward

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQatar National Research Fund
KeywordsNorm (philosophy)Iterative reconstructionMatrix normOptimization problemLow-rank approximationCompressed sensingRank (graph theory)AlgorithmDynamic contrast-enhanced MRIMinificationComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsCombinatoricsArtificial intelligencePure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work addresses the problem of dynamic MRI reconstruction from partially sampled K-space. When the frames of the dynamic MRI sequences are stacked as columns of a matrix, the resultant matrix is both sparse (in a transform domain) and rank-deficient. The dynamic MRI sequence is reconstructed by solving an optimization problem that minimizes a sum of sparsity and rank-deficiency penalties subject to data constraints (K-space data acquisition model). In this work, we propose a non-convex optimization problem for dynamic MRI reconstruction where the sparsity penalty is an lp-norm and the rank-deficiency penalty is the Schatten-q norm (0p-norm and Schatten-q norm minimization problem; hence we derive a new algorithm based on the Majorization Minimization method. Our proposed method shows considerable improvement in reconstruction results over state-of-the-art techniques in dynamic MRI reconstruction.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207