MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2467324505 · doi:10.1118/1.4955843

SU‐F‐I‐15: Evaluation of a New MR‐Compatible Respiratory Motion Device at 3T

2016· article· en· W2467324505 on OpenAlexaffabout
A Soliman, Brige Chugh, Brian Keller, Arjun Sahgal, William Y. Song

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerImaging phantomWaveformPhysicsMatch movingLinear motionComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMotion (physics)OpticsNuclear magnetic resonanceAcousticsNuclear medicineComputer visionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Recent advances in MRI‐guided radiotherapy has inspired the development of MRI‐compatible motion devices that simulate patient periodic motion in the scanner, particularly respiratory motion. Most commercial devices rely on non MR‐safe ferromagnetic stepper motors which are not practical for regular QA testing. This work evaluates the motion performance of a new fully MRI compatible respiratory motion device at 3T. Methods: The QUASAR™ MRI‐compatible respiratory motion phantom has been recently developed by Modus QA Inc., London, ON, Canada. The prototype is constructed from diamagnetic materials with linear motion generated using MRI‐compatible piezoelectric motors that can be safely inserted in the scanner bore. The tumor was represented by a fillable sphere and is attached to the linear motion generator. The spherical tumor‐representative and its surroundings were filled with different concentrations of MnCl2 to produce realistic relaxation times. The motion was generated along the longitudinal (H/F) axis of the bore using sinusoidal reference waveform (amplitude = 15 mm, frequency 0.25 Hz). Imaging was then performed on 3T Philips Achieva using a 32‐channel cardiac coil. Fast 2D spoiled gradient‐echo was used with a spatial resolution of 1.8 × 1.8 mm2 and slice thickness of 4 mm. The motion waveform was then measured on the resultant image series by tracking the centroid of the sphere through the time series. This image‐derived measured motion was compared to the software‐generated reference waveform. Results: No visible distortions from the device were observed on the images. Excellent agreement between the measured and the reference waveforms were obtained. Negligible motion was observed in the lateral (R/L) direction. Conclusion: Our investigation demonstrates that this piezo‐electric motor design is effective at simulating periodic motion and is a potential candidate for MRI‐radiotherapy respiratory motion simulation. Future work should focus on evaluating non‐sinusoidal waveforms, fast 3D pulse sequences, and perform dosimetric QA.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→