MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009866784 · doi:10.1002/mrm.28233

Simple compensation method for improved half‐pulse excitation profile with rephasing gradient

2020· article· en· W3009866784 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Latta, Zenon Starčuk, Martin Kojan, Marco L.H. Gruwel, Bogusław Tomanek, Siegfried Trattnig, Vladimír Juráš

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsCalibrationImaging phantomPulse (music)Image qualityExcitationSIGNAL (programming language)Phase (matter)OpticsDistortion (music)Computer scienceMathematicsPhysicsImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceDetectorStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To improve the slice profile quality obtained by RF half-pulse excitation for 2D-UTE applications. METHODS: The overall first-order and zero-order phase errors along the slice-selection direction were obtained with the help of an optimization task to minimize the out-of-slice signal contamination from the calibration 1-dimenisonal (1D) profile data. The time-phase-error evolution was approximated from the k-space readout data, which were acquired primarily for correction of the readout trajectories during data regridding to the rectilinear grids. The correction of the slice profile was achieved by rephasing gradient pulses applied immediately after the end of excitation. The total prescan calibration typically took less than 2 minutes. RESULTS: The improved image quality using the proposed calibration method was demonstrated both on phantoms and on ankle images obtained from healthy volunteers. It was demonstrated that calibration can be performed either as a separate water phantom measurement or directly as a prescan procedure. CONCLUSION: The slice-profile distortion from the half-pulse excitation could substantially affect the overall fidelity of 2D-UTE images. The presented experiments proved that the image quality could be substantially increased by application of the proposed slice-correction method.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207