Susceptibility‐weighted imaging: current status and future directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) is a method that uses the intrinsic nature of local magnetic fields to enhance image contrast in order to improve the visibility of various susceptibility sources and to facilitate diagnostic interpretation. It is also the precursor to the concept of the use of phase for quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). Nowadays, SWI has become a widely used clinical tool to image deoxyhemoglobin in veins, iron deposition in the brain, hemorrhages, microbleeds and calcification. In this article, we review the basics of SWI, including data acquisition, data reconstruction and post-processing. In particular, the source of cusp artifacts in phase images is investigated in detail and an improved multi-channel phase data combination algorithm is provided. In addition, we show a few clinical applications of SWI for the imaging of stroke, traumatic brain injury, carotid vessel wall, siderotic nodules in cirrhotic liver, prostate cancer, prostatic calcification, spinal cord injury and intervertebral disc degeneration. As the clinical applications of SWI continue to expand both in and outside the brain, the improvement of SWI in conjunction with QSM is an important future direction of this technology. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it