Design and evaluation of an MRI-compatible linear motion stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a tool for accurate, reproducible, and programmable motion control of imaging phantoms for use in motion sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appli cations. METHODS: In this paper, the authors introduce a compact linear motion stage that is made of nonmagnetic material and is actuated with an ultrasonic motor. The stage can be positioned at arbitrary positions and orientations inside the scanner bore to move, push, or pull arbitrary phantoms. Using optical trackers, measuring microscopes, and navigators, the accuracy of the stage in motion control was evaluated. Also, the effect of the stage on image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), artifacts, and B0 field homogeneity was evaluated. RESULTS: The error of the stage in reaching fixed positions was 0.025 ± 0.021 mm. In execution of dynamic motion profiles, the worst-case normalized root mean squared error was below 7% (for frequencies below 0.33 Hz). Experiments demonstrated that the stage did not introduce artifacts nor did it degrade the image SNR. The effect of the stage on the B0 field was less than 2 ppm. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the experiments indicate that the proposed system is MRI-compatible and can create reliable and reproducible motion that may be used for validation and assessment of motion related MRI applications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".