MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the cause of increased aliasing in the slice-select direction in 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography

2000· article· en· W2062440279 on OpenAlexafffund
Alan H. Wilman, Stephen J. Riederer

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsAliasingFlip angleContrast (vision)PerpendicularMagnetic resonance angiographyMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear magnetic resonanceElectromagnetic coilMaterials sciencePhysicsAngiographyOpticsNuclear medicineComputer scienceRadiologyMathematicsMedicineGeometryComputer visionFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combination of short repetition times and large flip angles typically used in 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (3D CE MRA) can significantly alter the expected shape of the slab profile for unenhanced tissues, which can cause increased aliasing in the slice select direction. In this work, this increased slice select aliasing is demonstrated and explained from both theoretical and experimental points of view. The effect is due to the Ernst angle of unenhanced background tissue occurring on the falling edges of the flip angle profile that has been set for the significantly reduced T(1) of contrast-enhanced blood. The deleterious aliasing effects are magnified substantially when the chosen volume is placed close to surface coil reception with the slice select direction perpendicular to the coil axis. Magn Reson Med 44:336-338, 2000.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207