Susceptibility‐weighted imaging using inter‐echo‐variance channel combination for improved contrast at 7 tesla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To implement and optimize a new approach for susceptibility-weighted image (SWI) generation from multi-echo multi-channel image data and compare its performance against optimized traditional SWI pipelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five healthy volunteers were imaged at 7 Tesla. The inter-echo-variance (IEV) channel combination, which uses the variance of the local frequency shift at multiple echo times as a weighting factor during channel combination, was used to calculate multi-echo local phase shift maps. Linear phase masks were combined with the magnitude to generate IEV-SWI. The performance of the IEV-SWI pipeline was compared with that of two accepted SWI pipelines-channel combination followed by (i) Homodyne filtering (HPH-SWI) and (ii) unwrapping and high-pass filtering (SVD-SWI). The filtering steps of each pipeline were optimized. Contrast-to-noise ratio was used as the comparison metric. Qualitative assessment of artifact and vessel conspicuity was performed and processing time of pipelines was evaluated. RESULTS: The optimized IEV-SWI pipeline (σ = 7 mm) resulted in continuous vessel visibility throughout the brain. IEV-SWI had significantly higher contrast compared with HPH-SWI and SVD-SWI (P < 0.001, Friedman nonparametric test). Residual background fields and phase wraps in HPH-SWI and SVD-SWI corrupted the vessel signal and/or generated vessel-mimicking artifact. Optimized implementation of the IEV-SWI pipeline processed a six-echo 16-channel dataset in under 10 min. CONCLUSION: IEV-SWI benefits from channel-by-channel processing of phase data and results in high contrast images with an optimal balance between contrast and background noise removal, thereby presenting evidence of importance of the order in which postprocessing techniques are applied for multi-channel SWI generation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:1113-1124.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".