Removing undersampling artifacts in DCE‐MRI studies using independent components analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In breast MRI mammography both high temporal resolution and high spatial resolution have been shown to be important in improving specificity. Adaptive methods such as projection reconstruction time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics (PR-TRICKS) allow images to be reconstructed at various temporal and spatial resolutions from the same data set. The main disadvantage is that the undersampling, which is necessary to produce high temporal resolution images, leads to the presence of streak artifacts in the images. We present a novel method of removing these artifacts using independent components analysis (ICA) and demonstrate that this results in a significant improvement in image quality for both simulation studies and for patient dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI images. We also investigate the effect of artifacts on two quantitative measures of contrast enhancement. Using simulation studies we demonstrate that streak artifacts lead to pronounced periodic oscillations in pixel concentration curves which, in turn, lead to increased errors and introduce bias into heuristic measurements. ICA filtering significantly reduces this bias and improves accuracy. Pharmacokinetic modeling was more robust and there was no evidence of bias due to the presence of streak artifacts. ICA filtering did not significantly reduce the errors in the estimated pharmacokinetic parameters; however, the chi-squared error was greatly reduced after ICA filtering.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".