MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2471515287 · doi:10.1118/1.4956062

SU‐F‐J‐154: Harmonic Analysis for Arbitrary 3D MR Image Distortion Fields

2016· article· en· W2471515287 on OpenAlexaff
T Stanescu, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuboidHarmonicImaging phantomDistortion (music)Mathematical analysisAlgorithmMathematicsScannerPhysicsGeometryOpticsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To study the practical feasibility of harmonic analysis for the full quantification of 3D MR image distortion fields associated with arbitrarily‐shaped regions of interest. Methods: The 3D scanner‐related distortion field (F) is innate to the MR image data. Since it is implicitly related to the magnetic fields required to perform MR imaging, F is in a steady‐state and can be described by a boundary value problem in which the Laplace's equation is solved with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Specifically, to fully derive a unique solution for F inside an arbitrarily‐shaped domain (D) the minimum input data required is given by the boundary of D. In practice, the data that needs to be measured by means of image acquisition and post‐processing is on the 3D surface of D (e.g. ellipsoid, cylinder, cuboid). Data from a large FOV phantom with a dense grid structure was used as a reference to explore multiple scenarios. The harmonic analysis solver was based on a finite element method and the domains were defined as binary STL structures for robust meshing. Simple and complex (non‐)quadratic shapes were analyzed to test the applicability of the harmonic approach. The harmonic solution and reference data were compared inside D using histograms and typical metrics such as max/mean/stdev using a residual error threshold set by the accuracy of the reference data (i.e. 1 mm). Results: The harmonic analysis showed good performance for all cases investigated. The percentage of control points inside D exhibiting residual values above 1 mm was lower than 1%. Conclusion: Harmonic analysis can be used to characterize geometric distortions inside arbitrary volumes given availability of the surface data with a certain accuracy.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→