A novel approach to quantification of real and artifactual components of current density imaging for phantom and live heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial distribution of injected current in a subject could be calculated and visualized through current density imaging (CDI). Calculated CDI paths however have a limited degree of accuracy due to both avoidable methodological errors and inevitable limitations dictated by MR imaging constraints. The source and impact of these limitations are scrutinized in this paper. Quantification of such limitations is an essential step prior to passing any judgment about the results especially in biomedical applications. An innovative technique along with metrics for evaluation of range of errors using baseline and phase cycle MR images is proposed in this work. The presented approach is helpful in pinpointing the local artifacts (areas for which CDI results are suspect), evaluation of global noises and artifacts and assessment of the effect of approximation algorithms on real and artifactual components. We will demonstrate how this error/reliability evaluation is applicable to interpretation of CDI results and in this framework, report the CDI results for an artificial phantom and a live pig heart in Langendorff setup. It is contended here that using this method, the inevitable trade-off between details and approximations of CDI components could be monitored which provides a great opportunity for robust interpretation of results. The proposed approach could be extended, adapted and used for statistical analysis of similar methods which aim at mapping current and impedance based on magnetic flux images obtained through MRI.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".