Diagnostic quality assessment of compressed sensing accelerated magnetic resonance neuroimaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of compressed sensing (CS) reconstructions for specific clinical magnetic resonance neuroimaging applications beyond more conventional acceleration techniques such as parallel imaging (PI) and low-resolution acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Raw k-space data were acquired from five healthy volunteers on a 3T scanner using a 32-channel head coil using T2 -FLAIR, FIESTA-C, time of flight (TOF), and spoiled gradient echo (SPGR) sequences. In a series of blinded studies, three radiologists independently evaluated CS, PI (GRAPPA), and low-resolution images at up to 5× accelerations. Synthetic T2 -FLAIR images with artificial lesions were used to assess diagnostic accuracy for CS reconstructions. RESULTS: CS reconstructions were of diagnostically acceptable quality at up to 4× acceleration for T2 -FLAIR and FIESTA-C (average qualitative scores 3.7 and 4.3, respectively, on a 5-point scale at 4× acceleration), and at up to 3× acceleration for TOF and SPGR (average scores 4.0 and 3.7, respectively, at 3× acceleration). The qualitative scores for CS reconstructions were significantly better than low-resolution images for T2 -FLAIR, FIESTA-C, and TOF and significantly better than GRAPPA for TOF and SPGR (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < 0.05) with no significant difference found otherwise. Diagnostic accuracy was acceptable for both CS and low-resolution images at up to 3× acceleration (area under the ROC curve 0.97 and 0.96, respectively.) CONCLUSION: Mild to moderate accelerations are possible for those sequences by a combined CS and PI reconstruction. Nevertheless, for certain sequences/applications one might mildly reduce the acquisition time by appropriately reducing the imaging resolution rather than the more complicated CS reconstruction. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:433-444.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".