Correlation between <i>k</i>‐space sampling pattern and MTF in compressed sensing MRSI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between the k-space sampling patterns used for compressed sensing MR spectroscopic imaging (CS-MRSI) and the modulation transfer function (MTF) of the metabolite maps. This relationship may allow the desired frequency content of the metabolite maps to be quantitatively tailored when designing an undersampling pattern. METHODS: Simulations of a phantom were used to calculate the MTF of Nyquist sampled (NS) 32 × 32 MRSI, and four-times undersampled CS-MRSI reconstructions. The dependence of the CS-MTF on the k-space sampling pattern was evaluated for three sets of k-space sampling patterns generated using different probability distribution functions (PDFs). CS-MTFs were also evaluated for three more sets of patterns generated using a modified algorithm where the sampling ratios are constrained to adhere to PDFs. RESULTS: was found between the MTF of CS-MRSI and the product of the frequency-dependant sampling ratio and the NS 32 × 32 MTF. Also, PDF-constrained sampling patterns led to higher reproducibility of the CS-MTF, and stronger correlations to the above-mentioned product. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship established in this work provides the user with a theoretical solution for the MTF of CS MRSI that is both predictable and customizable to the user's needs.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".