MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737269897 · doi:10.1002/mrm.26839

Susceptibility‐induced distortion correction in hyperpolarized echo planar imaging

2017· article· en· W2737269897 on OpenAlexaff
Jack J. Miller, Angus Lau, Damian J. Tyler

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced NMR Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilBritish Heart FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNvidia
KeywordsDistortion (music)Nuclear magnetic resonanceEcho-planar imagingPhysicsMagnetic resonance imagingEcho (communications protocol)k-spacePlanarSpin echoComputer scienceFourier transformMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Echo planar imaging is an attractive rapid imaging readout that can image hyperpolarized compounds in vivo. By alternating the sign of the phase encoding gradient waveform, spatial offsets arising from uncertain frequency shifts can be determined. We show here that blip‐reversed echo planar imaging can also be used to correct for susceptibility and B0 inhomogeneity effects that would otherwise produce image‐domain distortion in the heart. Methods Previously acquired blip‐reversed cardiac 3D‐Spectral‐Spatial echo planar imaging volumetric timecourses of hyperpolarized [1‐13C]pyruvate were distortion corrected by a deformation field estimated by reconstructing signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR)‐weighted progressively subsampled temporally summed images of each metabolite. Results Reconstructing blip‐reversed data as proposed produced volumetric timecourses that overlaid with proton reference images more consistently than without such corrections. Conclusion The method proposed may form an attractive method to correct for image‐domain distortions in hyperpolarized echo planar imaging experiments. Magn Reson Med 79:2135–2141, 2018. © 2017 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced NMR Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207