Deep-Learning Methods for Parallel Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reconstruction: A Survey of the Current Approaches, Trends, and Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the success of deep learning in a wide range of applications, neural network-based machine learning techniques have received interest as a means of accelerating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A number of ideas inspired by deep learning techniques from computer vision and image processing have been successfully applied to non-linear image reconstruction in the spirit of compressed sensing for both low dose computed tomography and accelerated MRI. The additional integration of multi-coil information to recover missing k-space lines in the MRI reconstruction process, is still studied less frequently, even though it is the de-facto standard for currently used accelerated MR acquisitions. This manuscript provides an overview of the recent machine learning approaches that have been proposed specifically for improving parallel imaging. A general background introduction to parallel MRI is given that is structured around the classical view of image space and k-space based methods. Both linear and non-linear methods are covered, followed by a discussion of recent efforts to further improve parallel imaging using machine learning, and specifically using artificial neural networks. Image-domain based techniques that introduce improved regularizers are covered as well as k-space based methods, where the focus is on better interpolation strategies using neural networks. Issues and open problems are discussed as well as recent efforts for producing open datasets and benchmarks for the community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".