Advantages of frequency‐domain modeling in dynamic‐susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance cerebral blood flow quantification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In dynamic-susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance perfusion imaging, the cerebral blood flow (CBF) is estimated from the tissue residue function obtained through deconvolution of the contrast concentration functions. However, the reliability of CBF estimates obtained by deconvolution is sensitive to various distortions including high-frequency noise amplification. The frequency-domain Fourier transform-based and the time-domain singular-value decomposition-based (SVD) algorithms both have biases introduced into their CBF estimates when noise stability criteria are applied or when contrast recirculation is present. The recovery of the desired signal components from amid these distortions by modeling the residue function in the frequency domain is demonstrated. The basic advantages and applicability of the frequency-domain modeling concept are explored through a simple frequency-domain Lorentzian model (FDLM); with results compared to standard SVD-based approaches. The performance of the FDLM method is model dependent, well representing residue functions in the exponential family while less accurately representing other functions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".