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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".