Retrospective correction of MR intensity inhomogeneity by information minimization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it