Phase processing for quantitative susceptibility mapping of regions with large susceptibility and lack of signal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Phase processing impacts the accuracy of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). Techniques for phase unwrapping and background removal have been proposed and demonstrated mostly in brain. In this work, phase processing was evaluated in the context of large susceptibility variations (Δχ) and negligible signal, in particular for susceptibility estimation using the iterative phase replacement (IPR) algorithm. METHODS: Continuous Laplacian, region-growing, and quality-guided unwrapping were evaluated. For background removal, Laplacian boundary value (LBV), projection onto dipole fields (PDF), sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (SHARP), variable-kernel sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (V-SHARP), regularization enabled sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (RESHARP), and 3D quadratic polynomial field removal were studied. Each algorithm was quantitatively evaluated in simulation and qualitatively in vivo. Additionally, IPR-QSM maps were produced to evaluate the impact of phase processing on the susceptibility in the context of large Δχ with negligible signal. RESULTS: Quality-guided unwrapping was the most accurate technique, whereas continuous Laplacian performed poorly in this context. All background removal algorithms tested resulted in important phase inaccuracies, suggesting that techniques used for brain do not translate well to situations where large Δχ and no or low signal are expected. LBV produced the smallest errors, followed closely by PDF. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that quality-guided unwrapping should be preferred, with PDF or LBV for background removal, for QSM in regions with large Δχ and negligible signal. This reduces the susceptibility inaccuracy introduced by phase processing. Accurate background removal remains an open question. Magn Reson Med 79:3103-3113, 2017. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".