MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049708416 · doi:10.1002/cmr.b.21212

Design study to investigate the effect of curvature on gradient coil performance for localized regions of interest

2012· article· en· W2049708416 on OpenAlexaff
Chad Harris, William B. Handler, Blaine A. Chronik

Bibliographic record

VenueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part B · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvatureElectromagnetic coilGeometryPhysicsBoundary (topology)PerpendicularPlanarDegree (music)Nuclear magnetic resonanceMechanicsAcousticsMaterials scienceMathematical analysisMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, a boundary element method has been implemented to design and analyze the performance of curved gradient coil geometries as a function of the degree of curvature over all three axes, with designs varying continuously from planar to full cylindrical. It was found that there is a monotonic increase in gradient performance with degree of curvature with little gain beyond half‐cylindrical coil geometries for a specific region of interest located 10 cm above the coil surface. The efficiencies of the half‐cylindrical geometry coils are 0.76 mT m −1 A −1 , 0.71 mT m −1 A −1 , and 0.76 mT m −1 A −1 for the x ‐, y ‐, and z ‐gradient axes, respectively, when scaled to 800 μH inductance. The gradient coils presented in this study would serve as anatomically specific gradient channels to be used in conjunction with larger, whole‐body coils to comprise a 6‐channel hybrid system. The function of these channels could include the ability to provide very high performance diffusion tensor imaging in a specified volume of tissue such as the breast, prostate, or posterior regions of the brain. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Concepts Magn Reson Part B (Magn Reson Engineering) 41B: 62–71, 2012

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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