MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Free-breathing Motion Compensation Using Template Matching

2007· article· en· W2081893602 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Noseworthy, Masoom A. Haider, Marshall S. Sussman, Graham A. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity Health NetworkSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreathingMatching (statistics)Motion (physics)Compensation (psychology)Template matchingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionAnatomyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling tracer kinetics from dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) to understand microvascular characteristics typically requires acquisitions longer than 1 breath-hold. This has limited the application of dMRI in assessment of the upper abdomen. Here we present a template-based motion correction strategy for dMRI of liver metastases based on the correlation coefficient (CC), originally developed for tracking coronary arteries. This postprocessing method allows patient free breathing during sagittal dMRI acquisition and allows a more precise parametric mapping using tracer kinetic models. In a study of 6 subjects, a 64 x 64 template was accurately tracked retrospectively with mean CC = 0.72 +/- 0.07. Mean superior-inferior displacement tracked was 1.82 +/- 1.20 pixels, whereas mean anterior-posterior displacement was 7.72 +/- 4.58 pixels. Application of the CC method significantly improved the global fit (chi2) of a tracer kinetic model throughout tumor regions. Therefore, use of the CC postprocessing method for dMRI scans can improve the precision of dMRI tracer kinetic models.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computer Assisted TomographySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207