MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2537485100 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2004.1403529

Modeling susceptibility difference artifacts produced by metallic implants in magnetic resonance imaging with point-based thin-plate spline image registration

2005· article· en· W2537485100 on OpenAlexafffund
Yves Pauchard, Michael R. Smith, Martin P. Mintchev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImaging phantomSpline (mechanical)Computer visionThin plate splineArtificial intelligenceImage registrationPoint (geometry)Compensation (psychology)GridPixelMagnetic resonance imagingComputer scienceImage (mathematics)OpticsMaterials scienceMathematicsPhysicsSpline interpolationGeometryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suffers from geometric distortions arising from various sources. One such source are the non-linearities associated with the presence of metallic implants, which can profoundly distort the obtained images. These non-linearities result in pixel shifts and intensity changes in the vicinity of the implant, often precluding any meaningful assessment of the entire image. This paper presents a method for correcting these distortions based on non-rigid image registration techniques. Two images from a modelled three-dimensional (3D) grid phantom were subjected to point-based thin-plate spline registration. The reference image (without distortions) was obtained from a grid model including a spherical implant, and the corresponding test image containing the distortions was obtained using previously reported technique for spatial modelling of magnetic susceptibility artifacts. After identifying the nonrecoverable area in the distorted image, the calculated spline model was able to quantitatively account for the distortions, thus facilitating their compensation. Upon the completion of the compensation procedure, the non-recoverable area was removed from the reference image and the latter was compared to the compensated image. Quantitative assessment of the goodness of the proposed compensation technique is presented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207