MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122631012 · doi:10.1002/jmri.23642

Physics of MRI: A primer

2012· review· en· W2122631012 on OpenAlexaff
Donald B. Plewes, Walter Kucharczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsPresentation (obstetrics)Physics of magnetic resonance imagingPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceMedical physicsSpin echoRelaxometryRadiologyArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is based on an introductory lecture given for the past many years during the "MR Physics and Techniques for Clinicians" course at the Annual Meeting of the ISMRM. This introduction is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of the field, as the subject of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) physics is large and complex. Rather, it is intended to lay a conceptual foundation by which magnetic resonance image formation can be understood from an intuitive perspective. The presentation is nonmathematical, relying on simple models that take the reader progressively from the basic spin physics of nuclei, through descriptions of how the magnetic resonance signal is generated and detected in an MRI scanner, the foundations of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxation, and a discussion of the Fourier transform and its relation to MR image formation. The article continues with a discussion of how magnetic field gradients are used to facilitate spatial encoding and concludes with a development of basic pulse sequences and the factors defining image contrast.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations212
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207