MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Myelin water imaging data analysis in less than one minute

2020· article· en· W3003101200 on OpenAlexafffund
Hanwen Liu, Qing‐San Xiang, Roger Tam, Adam Dvorak, Alex L. MacKay, Shannon Kolind, Anthony Traboulsee, Irene M. Vavasour, David K.B. Li, John K. G. Kramer, Cornelia Laule

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Collaboration On Repair Discoveries
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
KeywordsVoxelPattern recognition (psychology)MyelinArtificial intelligenceWhite matterNeuroimagingArtificial neural networkScannerComputer scienceMagnetic resonance imagingNeurosciencePsychologyCentral nervous systemMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on a deep learning neural network (NN) algorithm, a super fast and easy to implement data analysis method was proposed for myelin water imaging (MWI) to calculate the myelin water fraction (MWF). A NN was constructed and trained on MWI data acquired by a 32-echo 3D gradient and spin echo (GRASE) sequence. Ground truth labels were created by regularized non-negative least squares (NNLS) with stimulated echo corrections. Voxel-wise GRASE data from 5 brains (4 healthy, 1 multiple sclerosis (MS)) were used for NN training. The trained NN was tested on 2 healthy brains, 1 MS brain with segmented lesions, 1 healthy spinal cord, and 1 healthy brain acquired from a different scanner. Production of whole brain MWF maps in approximately 33 ​s can be achieved by a trained NN without graphics card acceleration. For all testing regions, no visual differences between NN and NNLS MWF maps were observed, and no obvious regional biases were found. Quantitatively, all voxels exhibited excellent agreement between NN and NNLS (all R2>0.98, p ​< ​0.001, mean absolute error <0.01). The time for accurate MWF calculation can be dramatically reduced to less than 1 ​min by the proposed NN, addressing one of the barriers facing future clinical feasibility of MWI.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207