MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898201119 · doi:10.1002/mrm.27527

A framework for Fourier‐decomposition free‐breathing pulmonary <sup>1</sup>H MRI ventilation measurements

2018· article· en· W2898201119 on OpenAlexafffund
Fumin Guo, Dante P. I. Capaldi, David G. McCormack, Aaron Fenster, Grace Párraga

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReproducibilitySegmentationImage registrationCorrelation coefficientCoefficient of variationNuclear medicineSimilarity (geometry)Fiducial markerArtificial intelligenceVentilation (architecture)Pearson product-moment correlation coefficientConcordance correlation coefficientMathematicsComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringPattern recognition (psychology)MedicinePhysicsStatisticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To develop a rapid Fourier decomposition (FD) free‐breathing pulmonary 1H MRI (FDMRI) image processing and biomarker pipeline for research use. Methods We acquired MRI in 20 asthmatic subjects using a balanced steady‐state free precession (bSSFP) sequence optimized for ventilation imaging. 2D 1H MRI series were segmented by enforcing the spatial similarity between adjacent images and the right‐to‐left lung volume–ratio. The segmented lung series were co‐registered using a coarse‐to‐fine deformable registration framework that used dual optimization techniques. All pairwise registrations were implemented in parallel and FD was performed to generate 2D ventilation‐weighted maps and ventilation‐defect‐percent (VDP). Lung segmentation and registration accuracy were evaluated by comparing algorithm and manual lung‐masks, deformed manual lung‐masks, and fiducials in the moving and fixed images using Dice‐similarity‐coefficient (DSC), mean‐absolute‐distance (MAD), and target‐registration‐error (TRE). The relationship of FD‐VDP and 3He‐VDP was evaluated using the Pearson‐correlation‐coefficient (r) and Bland Altman analysis. Algorithm reproducibility was evaluated using the coefficient‐of‐variation (CoV) and intra‐class‐correlation‐coefficient (ICC) for segmentation, registration, and FD‐VDP components. Results For lung segmentation, there was a DSC of 95 ± 1.5% and MAD of 2.3 ± 0.5 mm, and for registration there was a DSC of 97 ± 0.8%, MAD of 1.6 ± 0.4 mm and TRE of 3.6 ± 1.2 mm. Reproducibility for segmentation DSC (CoV/ICC = 0.5%/0.92), registration TRE (CoV/ICC = 0.4%/0.98), and FD‐VDP (Cov/ICC = 3.9%/0.97) was high. The pipeline required 10 min/subject. FD‐VDP was correlated with 3He‐VDP (r = 0.69, P < 0.001) although there was a bias toward lower FD‐VDP (bias = −4.9%). Conclusions We developed and evaluated a pipeline that provides a rapid and precise method for FDMRI ventilation maps.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207