The impact of partial‐volume effects in dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance perfusion imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the degree of the cerebral blood flow (CBF) estimation bias that could arise from distortion of the arterial input function (AIF) as a result of partial-volume effects (PVEs) in dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model of the volume fraction an artery occupies in a voxel was devised, and a mathematical relationship between the amount of PVE and the measured baseline MR signal intensity was derived. Based on this model, simulation studies were performed to assess the impact of PVE on CBF. Furthermore, the effectiveness of linear PVE compensation approaches on the concentration function was investigated. RESULTS: Simulation results showed a nonlinear relationship between PVE and the resulting CBF measurement error. In addition to AIF underestimation, PVE also causes distortions of AIF frequency characteristics, leading to CBF errors varying with mean transit time (MTT). An uncorrected AIF measured at a voxel with a partial-volume fraction of <or=50% could produce a CBF overestimation of more than fourfold. Linear compensation of the concentration curves did not produce correct CBF estimates. CONCLUSION: PVE can induce significant CBF estimation biases. In addition, the MTT dependence of CBF accuracy raises doubts of the validity of adopting a single cross-calibration factor (i.e., setting normal white matter to 22 mL minute(-1) (100 g)(-1)) to obtain CBF values with absolute units. The impact of PVE may be reduced by decreasing the maximum arterial signal drop in the perfusion images. To correct the AIF distortions introduced by PVE, the nonlinear relationship between the impact of PVE on MR signal intensity and contrast concentration function must be considered.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".