CNR considerations for rapid real-time MRI tumor tracking in radiotherapy hybrid devices: Effects of<i>B</i><sub>0</sub>field strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This work examines the subject of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), specifically between tumor and tissue background, and its dependence on the MRI field strength, B0. This examination is motivated by the recent interest and developments in MRI/radiotherapy hybrids where real-time imaging can be used to guide treatment beams. The ability to distinguish a tumor from background tissue is of primary importance in this field, and this work seeks to elucidate the complex relationship between the CNR and B0 that is too often assumed to be purely linear. METHODS: Experimentally based models of B0-dependant relaxation for various tumor and normal tissues from the literature were used in conjunction with signal equations for MR sequences suitable for rapid real-time imaging to develop field-dependent predictions for CNR. These CNR models were developed for liver, lung, breast, glioma, and kidney tumors for spoiled gradient-echo, balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP), and single-shot half-Fourier fast spin echo sequences. RESULTS: Due to the pattern in which the relaxation properties of tissues are found to vary over B0 field (specifically the T1 time), there was always an improved CNR at lower fields compared to linear dependency. Further, in some tumor sites, the CNR at lower fields was found to be comparable to, or sometimes higher than those at higher fields (i.e., bSSFP CNR for glioma, kidney, and liver tumors). CONCLUSIONS: In terms of CNR, lower B0 fields have been shown to perform as well or better than higher fields for some tumor sites due to superior T1 contrast. In other sites this effect was less pronounced, reversing the CNR advantage. This complex relationship between CNR and B0 reveals both low and high magnetic fields as viable options for tumor tracking in MRI/radiotherapy hybrids.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".