A Comparison of Finite Element-Based Inversion Algorithms, Local Frequency Estimation, and Direct Inversion Approach Used in MRE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In quantitative elastography, maps of the mechanical properties of soft tissue, or elastograms, are calculated from the measured displacement data by solving an inverse problem. The model assumptions have a significant effect on elastograms. Motivated by the high sensitivity of imaging results to the model assumptions for in vivo magnetic resonance elastography of the prostate, we compared elastograms obtained with four different methods. Two finite-element method (FEM)-based methods developed by our group were compared with two other commonly used methods, local frequency estimator (LFE) and curl-based direct inversion (c-DI). All the methods assume a linear isotropic elastic model, but the methods vary in their assumptions, such as local homogeneity or incompressibility, and in the specific approach used. We report results using simulations, phantom, and ex vivo and in vivo data. The simulation and phantom studies show, for regions with an inclusion, that the contrast to noise ratio (CNR) for the FEM methods is about three to five times higher than the CNR for the LFE and c-DI and the rms error is about half. The LFE method produces very smooth results (i.e., low CNR) and is fast. c-DI is faster than the FEM methods but it is only accurate in areas where elasticity variations are small. The artifacts resulting from the homogeneity assumption in c-DI is detrimental in regions with large variations. The ex vivo and in vivo results also show similar trends as the simulation and phantom studies. The c-FEM method is more sensitive to noise compared with the mixed-FEM due to higher orders derivatives. This is especially evident at lower frequencies, where the wave curvature is smaller and it is more prone to such error, causing a discrepancy in the absolute values between the mixed-FEM and c-FEM in our in vivo results. In general, the proposed FEMs use fewer simplifying assumptions and outperform the other methods but they are computationally more expensive.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".