Improving geometric accuracy in the presence of susceptibility difference artifacts produced by metallic implants in magnetic resonance imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geometric and intensity distortions due to the presence of metallic implants in magnetic resonance imaging impede the full exploitation of this advanced imaging modality. The aim of this study is to provide a method for (a) quantifying and (b) reducing the implant distortions in patient images. Initially, a set of reference images (without distortion) was obtained by imaging a custom-designed three-dimensional grid phantom. Corresponding test images (containing the distortion) were acquired with the same imaging parameters, after positioning a specific metallic implant in the grid phantom. After determining: 1) the nonrecoverable; 2) the distorted, but recoverable; and 3) the unaffected areas, a point-based thin-plate spline image registration algorithm was employed to align the reference and test images. The calculated transformation functions utilized to align the image pairs described the implant distortions and could therefore be used to correct any other images containing the same distortions. The results demonstrate successful correction of grid phantom images with a metallic implant. Furthermore, the calculated correction was applied to porcine thigh images bearing the same metallic implant, simulating a patient environment. Qualitative and quantitative assessments of the proposed correction method are included.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".