MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2574881987 · doi:10.1002/mp.12027

Sliding window prior data assisted compressed sensing for <scp>MRI</scp> tracking of lung tumors

2017· article· en· W2574881987 on OpenAlexafffund
Eugene Yip, Jihyun Yun, Keith Wachowicz, Zsolt Gabos, S Rathee, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKillam TrustsAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsSliding window protocolCompressed sensingMagnetic resonance imagingComputer scienceAccelerationDynamic imagingMedical imagingImage qualityTracking (education)Computer visionWindow (computing)Artificial intelligencePhysicsImage processingRadiologyMedicineImage (mathematics)Digital image processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Hybrid magnetic resonance imaging and radiation therapy devices are capable of imaging in real-time to track intrafractional lung tumor motion during radiotherapy. Highly accelerated magnetic resonance (MR) imaging methods can potentially reduce system delay time and/or improves imaging spatial resolution, and provide flexibility in imaging parameters. Prior Data Assisted Compressed Sensing (PDACS) has previously been proposed as an acceleration method that combines the advantages of 2D compressed sensing and the KEYHOLE view-sharing technique. However, as PDACS relies on prior data acquired at the beginning of a dynamic imaging sequence, decline in image quality occurs for longer duration scans due to drifts in MR signal. Novel sliding window-based techniques for refreshing prior data are proposed as a solution to this problem. METHODS: MR acceleration is performed by retrospective removal of data from the fully sampled sets. Six patients with lung tumors are scanned with a clinical 3 T MRI using a balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) sequence for 3 min at approximately 4 frames per second, for a total of 650 dynamics. A series of distinct pseudo-random patterns of partial k-space acquisition is generated such that, when combined with other dynamics within a sliding window of 100 dynamics, covers the entire k-space. The prior data in the sliding window are continuously refreshed to reduce the impact of MR signal drifts. We intended to demonstrate two different ways to utilize the sliding window data: a simple averaging method and a navigator-based method. These two sliding window methods are quantitatively compared against the original PDACS method using three metrics: artifact power, centroid displacement error, and Dice's coefficient. The study is repeated with pseudo 0.5 T images by adding complex, normally distributed noise with a standard deviation that reduces image SNR, relative to original 3 T images, by a factor of 6. RESULTS: Without sliding window implemented, PDACS-reconstructed dynamic datasets showed progressive increases in image artifact power as the 3 min scan progresses. With sliding windows implemented, this increase in artifact power is eliminated. Near the end of a 3 min scan at 3 T SNR and 5× acceleration, implementation of an averaging (navigator) sliding window method improves our metrics by the following ways: artifact power decreases from 0.065 without sliding window to 0.030 (0.031), centroid error decreases from 2.64 to 1.41 mm (1.28 mm), and Dice coefficient agreement increases from 0.860 to 0.912 (0.915). At pseudo 0.5 T SNR, the improvements in metrics are as follows: artifact power decreases from 0.110 without sliding window to 0.0897 (0.0985), centroid error decreases from 2.92 mm to 1.36 mm (1.32 mm), and Dice coefficient agreements increases from 0.851 to 0.894 (0.896). CONCLUSIONS: In this work we demonstrated the negative impact of slow changes in MR signal for longer duration PDACS dynamic scans, namely increases in image artifact power and reductions of tumor tracking accuracy. We have also demonstrated sliding window implementations (i.e., refreshing of prior data) of PDACS are effective solutions to this problem at both 3 T and simulated 0.5 T bSSFP images.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207