Characterization of tissue magnetic susceptibility‐induced distortions for MRIgRT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: MR image geometric integrity is one of the building blocks of MRI-guided radiotherapy. In particular, tissue magnetic susceptibility-induced effects are patient-dependent and their behavior is difficult to assess and predict. In this study, the authors investigated in detail the characteristics of susceptibility (χ) distortions in the context of MRIgRT, including the case of two common MR-linac system configurations. METHODS: The magnetic field distortions were numerically simulated for several imaging parameters and anatomical sites, i.e., brain, lung, pelvis (with air pockets), and prostate. The simulation process consisted of (a) segmentation of patient CT data into susceptibility relevant anatomical volumes (i.e., soft-tissue, bone and air∕lung), (b) conversion of CT data into susceptibility masks by assigning bulk χ values to the structures defined at (a), (c) numerical computations of the local magnetic fields by using a finite difference algorithm, and (d) generation of the geometric distortion maps from the magnetic field distributions. For each patient anatomy, the distortions were quantified at the interfaces of anatomical structures with significantly different χ values. The analysis was performed for two specific orientations of the external main magnetic field (B(0)) characteristic to the MR-linac systems, specifically along the z-axis for a bore MR scanner and in the (x,y)-plane for a biplanner magnet. The magnetic field local perturbations were reported in ppm. The metrics used to quantify the geometric distortions were the maximum, mean, and range of distortions. The numerical simulation algorithm was validated using phantom data measurements. RESULTS: Susceptibility-induced distortions were determined for both quadratic and patient specific geometries. The numerical simulations showed a good agreement with the experimental data. The measurements were acquired at 1.5 and 3 T and with an encoding gradient varying between 3 and 20 mT∕m by using an annular phantom mimicking the water-air and water-oil χ interfaces. For quadratic geometries, the magnitude of field distortion increased rapidly with the size of the inhomogeneity up to about 10 mm and then tended to plateau. This trend became more evident for materials with a larger Δχ relative to water. The simulations showed only a slight increase in the maximum distortion values when the B(0) orientation was varied with regard to the shape of the χ inhomogeneity. In the case of patient anatomy, the largest distortion values arose at the air-soft-tissue interface. Considering the two MR-linac system configurations and comparing the field distortion values corresponding to all organ structures, the distortions tended to be larger for the biplanar magnet. The authors provide a reference table with ppm values which can be used to easily evaluate the geometric distortions for patient data as a function of B(0) and the strength of the encoding gradient. CONCLUSIONS: The susceptibility distortions were quantified as a function of multiple parameters such as the χ inhomogeneity size and shape, the magnitude of B(0) and the readout gradient, and the orientation of B(0) with respect to the sample geometry. The analysis was performed for several anatomical sites and corresponding to two B(0) orientations as featured by MR-linac systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".