MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032765157 · doi:10.1002/cmr.a.21256

A pixel is an artifact: On the necessity of zero‐filling in fourier imaging

2013· article· en· W2032765157 on OpenAlex
Xiaolu Zhu, Bogusław Tomanek, Jonathan C. Sharp

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMedical Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPixelComputer visionArtificial intelligenceFourier transformComputer scienceArtifact (error)Interpolation (computer graphics)Convolution (computer science)Frequency domainDiscrete Fourier transform (general)Image (mathematics)AlgorithmMathematicsFourier analysisMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract MR imaging data is sometimes presented in a “patchwork quilt” format with individual pixels visible as squares of uniform intensity. This phenomenon often arises by default from an image space convolution (performed implicitly by the graphics system) used to convert the sparse point sampling of the spatial domain offered by the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) into a sufficiently dense sampling to allow assignment of an intensity value to each addressable point on the display device. Typical examples are fMRI maps, spectroscopic images and zoomed‐in views. These square patches are image structure not present in the object, i.e., artifacts. This form of image display is studied by both an image analysis method and by Fourier analysis. Image formation by display of the 2D DFT of an acquired k‐space matrix as a 2D pixel array is a poor reconstruction because it does not ensure a faithful representation of the spatial frequency content actually present in the data. By analysis of the visual appearance of 2D pixel arrays we show that there are two principal effects: (a) attenuation of higher spatial frequencies (i.e., low‐pass filtering); (b) introduction of artifactual high frequency image structure. These effects can lead to very poor performance with an artifact/signal ratio of over 200% in the corners of 2D k‐space. Generated k‐space maps demonstrate that both detrimental effects increase radially in k‐space. The simple remedy is to zero‐fill (resulting in image interpolation) until individual pixels become invisible in the displayed image. Alternatively, data modeling may be used. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Concepts Magn Reson Part 42A: 32–44, 2013.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.298 · 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