MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009203701 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab7d13

Single patient convolutional neural networks for real-time MR reconstruction: coherent low-resolution versus incoherent undersampling

2020· article· en· W3009203701 on OpenAlexafffund
Bryson Dietz, Jihyun Yun, Eugene Yip, Zsolt Gabos, B. G. Fallone, Keith Wachowicz

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsUndersamplingComputer scienceIterative reconstructionArtificial intelligenceCentroidCompressed sensingComputer visionConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationReconstruction algorithmImage resolutionAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accelerated MRI involves undersampling k-space, creating unwanted artifacts when reconstructing the data. While the strategy of incoherent k-space acquisition is proven for techniques such as compressed sensing, it may not be optimal for all techniques. This study compares the use of coherent low-resolution (coherent-LR) and incoherent undersampling phase-encoding for real-time 3D CNN image reconstruction. Data were acquired with our 3 T Philips Achieva system. A retrospective analysis was performed on six non-small cell lung cancer patients who received dynamic acquisitions consisting of 650 free breathing images using a bSSFP sequence. We retrospectively undersampled the data by 5x and 10x acceleration using the two phase-encoding schemes. A quantitative analysis was conducted evaluating the tumor segmentations from the CNN reconstructed data using the Dice coefficient (DC) and centroid displacement. The reconstruction noise was evaluated using the structural similarity index (SSIM). Furthermore, we qualitatively investigated the CNN reconstruction using prospectively undersampled data, where the fully sampled training data set is acquired separately from the accelerated undersampled data. The patient averaged DC, centroid displacement, and SSIM for the tumor segmentation at 5x and 10x was superior using coherent low-resolution undersampling. Furthermore, the patient-specific CNN can be trained in under 6 h and the reconstruction time was 54 ms per image. Both the incoherent and coherent-LR prospective CNN reconstructions yielded qualitatively acceptable images; however, the coherent-LR reconstruction appeared superior to the incoherent reconstruction. We have demonstrated that coherent-LR undersampling for real-time CNN image reconstruction performs quantitatively better for the retrospective case of lung tumor segmentation, and qualitatively better for the prospective case. The tumor segmentation mean DC increased for all six patients at 5x acceleration and the temporal (dynamic) variance of the segmentation was reduced. The reconstruction speed achieved for our current implementation was 54 ms, providing an acceptable frame rate for real-time on-the-fly MR imaging.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.244
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.141 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207