CG‐SENSE revisited: Results from the first ISMRM reproducibility challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to shed light on the issue of reproducibility in MR image reconstruction in the context of a challenge. Participants had to recreate the results of "Advances in sensitivity encoding with arbitrary k-space trajectories" by Pruessmann et al. METHODS: The task of the challenge was to reconstruct radially acquired multicoil k-space data (brain/heart) following the method in the original paper, reproducing its key figures. Results were compared to consolidated reference implementations created after the challenge, accounting for the two most common programming languages used in the submissions (Matlab/Python). RESULTS: Visually, differences between submissions were small. Pixel-wise differences originated from image orientation, assumed field-of-view, or resolution. The reference implementations were in good agreement, both visually and in terms of image similarity metrics. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: While the description level of the published algorithm enabled participants to reproduce CG-SENSE in general, details of the implementation varied, for example, density compensation or Tikhonov regularization. Implicit assumptions about the data lead to further differences, emphasizing the importance of sufficient metadata accompanying open datasets. Defining reproducibility quantitatively turned out to be nontrivial for this image reconstruction challenge, in the absence of ground-truth results. Typical similarity measures like NMSE of SSIM were misled by image intensity scaling and outlier pixels. Thus, to facilitate reproducibility, researchers are encouraged to publish code and data alongside the original paper. Future methodological papers on MR image reconstruction might benefit from the consolidated reference implementations of CG-SENSE presented here, as a benchmark for methods comparison.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".