MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170628400 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2007.4353343

Analysis of Cardiac Diffusion Tensor Magnetic Resonance Images Using Sparse Representation

2007· article· en· W2170628400 on OpenAlexaff
Lijun Bao, Yuemin Zhu, Wanyu Liu, M Robini, Zhaobang Pu, Isabelle Magnin

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffusion MRIHeaviside step functionSparse approximationRepresentation (politics)Tensor (intrinsic definition)Artificial intelligenceNoise reductionNoise (video)Magnetic resonance imagingPattern recognition (psychology)Structure tensorComputer scienceDiffusionSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Basis (linear algebra)AlgorithmMathematicsImage (mathematics)PhysicsMathematical analysisGeometryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cardiac diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DT-MRI), low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) inherently hampers the measurement accuracy of myocardium fiber structures. This paper presents a new method for filtering diffusion weighted (DW) images in cardiac DT-MRI. The method is based on sparse representation through using basis pursuit denoising (BPDN) algorithm allowing seeking overall sparest solution. It decomposes useful structures in DW images into sparsely representing atoms with Heaviside dictionary, while yielding nonsparse representation on noise, which leads to the separation of the noise from the image's useful structures. The proposed method is evaluated on both simulated and real cardiac DW images.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207