Retrospective correction of MR intensity inhomogeneity by information minimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the problem of retrospective correction of intensity inhomogeneity in magnetic resonance (MR) images is addressed. A novel model-based correction method is proposed, based on the assumption that an image corrupted by intensity inhomogeneity contains more information than the corresponding uncorrupted image. The image degradation process is described by a linear model, consisting of a multiplicative and an additive component which are modeled by a combination of smoothly varying basis functions. The degraded image is corrected by the inverse of the image degradation model. The parameters of this model are optimized such that the information of the corrected image is minimized while the global intensity statistic is preserved. The method was quantitatively evaluated and compared to other methods on a number of simulated and real MR images and proved to be effective, reliable, and computationally attractive. The method can be widely applied to different types of MR images because it solely uses the information that is naturally present in an image, without making assumptions on its spatial and intensity distribution. Besides, the method requires no preprocessing, parameter setting, nor user interaction. Consequently, the proposed method may be a valuable tool in MR image analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".