Impact of outliers on diffusion tensor and Q‐ball imaging: Clinical implications and correction strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure the impact of corrupted images often found to occur in diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI). To propose a robust method for the correction of outliers, applicable to diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and q-ball imaging (QBI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monte Carlo simulations were carried out to measure the impact of outliers on DTI and QBI reconstruction in a single voxel. Methods to correct outliers based on q-space interpolation and direction removal were then implemented and validated in real image data. RESULTS: Corruption in a single voxel led to clear variations in DTI and QBI metrics. In real data, the method of q-space interpolation was successful in identifying corrupted voxels and restoring them to values consistent with those of uncorrupted images. CONCLUSION: For images containing few gradient directions, where outlier removal was either impossible due to limited volumes or resulted in large changes in DTI/QBI metrics, q-space interpolation proved to be the method of choice for image restoration. A simple decision support system is proposed to assist clinicians in the correction of their corrupted DW data.
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 | 0.009 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".