MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170864001 · doi:10.1002/jmri.20996

Artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the pelvis

2007· review· en· W2170864001 on OpenAlexaff
Khashayar Rafat Zand, Caroline Reinhold, Masoom A. Haider, Asako Nakai, Laurian Rohoman, Sharad Maheshwari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroubleshootingArtifact (error)Computer scienceRadiologyMedical physicsMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artifacts are intimately intertwined with MRI. For the practicing radiologist, effective supervision, troubleshooting, and interpretation of diagnostic MR studies require a solid knowledge of the pertinent artifacts. This article seeks to familiarize the reader with commonly encountered artifacts and pitfalls in pelvic imaging, the mechanism behind their generation, and methods of minimizing their negative impact or maximizing their diagnostic yield. It also serves as an exciting tool to learn many aspects of basic and advanced MR physics. Artifacts are categorized into patient- and sequence-related artifacts. Various manifestations of motion and vascular artifacts, susceptibility, altered tissue contrast, blurring, chemical shift artifact, volume averaging, and gadolinium (Gd) pseudolayering are explained, along with their proposed remedies.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations94
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207