Iterative optimization method for design of quantitative magnetization transfer imaging experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative magnetization transfer imaging (QMTI) using spoiled gradient echo sequences with pulsed off-resonance saturation can be a time-consuming technique. A method is presented for selection of an optimum experimental design for quantitative magnetization transfer imaging based on the iterative reduction of a discrete sampling of the Z-spectrum. The applicability of the technique is demonstrated for human brain white matter imaging at 1.5 T and 3 T, and optimal designs are produced to target specific model parameters. The optimal number of measurements and the signal-to-noise ratio required for stable parameter estimation are also investigated. In vivo imaging results demonstrate that this optimal design approach substantially improves parameter map quality. The iterative method presented here provides an advantage over free form optimal design methods, in that pragmatic design constraints are readily incorporated. In particular, the presented method avoids clustering and repeated measures in the final experimental design, an attractive feature for the purpose of magnetization transfer model validation. The iterative optimal design technique is general and can be applied to any method of quantitative magnetization transfer imaging.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".