MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034964388 · doi:10.1109/jstsp.2020.3001525

Enhanced Deep-Learning-Based Magnetic Resonance Image Reconstruction by Leveraging Prior Subject-Specific Brain Imaging: Proof-of-Concept Using a Cohort of Presumed Normal Subjects

2020· article· en· W3034964388 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsGeneral Electric (Canada)Foothills Medical CentreUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersScience and Engineering Research Council
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceIterative reconstructionWilcoxon signed-rank testMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingImage qualityPattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningComputer visionSimilarity (geometry)Mean squared errorNuclear medicineMathematicsImage (mathematics)MedicineStatisticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning models have shown potential for reconstructing undersampled, multi-channel magnetic resonance (MR) image acquisitions. Recently proposed methods, however, have not leveraged information from prior subject-specific MR imaging sessions. Such data are often readily available through a picture archiving and communication system (PACS). We propose a flexible three-step method to incorporate this prior information into an enhanced deep-learning-based reconstruction process. The method consists of Step 1: an initial reconstruction; Step 2: registration of the previous scan to the initial reconstruction; and Step 3: an enhancement network. Training and testing used longitudinally acquired, three-dimensional, T1-weighted brain images acquired with different acquisition parameters. We tested our networks using data from 2808 images (obtained in 18 subjects) under four different acceleration factors (R = {5, 10, 15, 20}). Our enhanced reconstruction (Steps 1-3) produced higher-quality images: structural similarity and peak signal-to-noise ratio increased, and normalized root mean squared error decreased on average by 16.5%, 7.0% and 21.1%, respectively, compared to the nonenhanced reconstruction (Step 1 only) under the same network capacity as the enhanced reconstruction model. These differences were statistically significant (p <; 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Further volumetric analysis performed on key brain regions (brain, white matter, gray matter and cortex) indicated that our enhanced images had better volume agreement with the fully sampled reference images compared to the non-enhanced images. hanced images for R = 20 were comparable to the non-enhanced images for R = 10 demonstrating that our proposed method use prior scan information to further accelerate MR examinations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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