Evaluation of Golden-Angle-Sampled Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Reconstruction Using Objective Image Quality Measures: A Simulated Phantom Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aim to extend the use of image quality metrics (IQMs) from static magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) applications to dynamic MRI studies. We assessed the use of 2 IQMs, the root mean square error and structural similarity index, in evaluating the reconstruction of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI data acquired using golden-angle sampling and compressed sensing (CS). To address the difficulty of obtaining ground-truth knowledge of parameters describing dynamics in real patient data, we developed a Matlab simulation framework to assess quantitative CS-DCE-MRI. We began by validating the response of each IQM to the CS-MRI reconstruction process using static data and the performance of our simulation framework with simple dynamic data. We then extended the simulations to the more realistic extended Tofts model. When assessing the Tofts model, we tested 4 different methods of selecting a reference image for the IQMs. Results from the retrospective static CS-MRI reconstructions showed that each IQM is responsive to the CS-MRI reconstruction process. Simulations of a simple contrast evolution model validated the performance of our framework. Despite the complexity of the Tofts model, both IQM scores correlated well with the recovery accuracy of a central model parameter for all reference cases studied. This finding may form the basis of algorithms for automated selection of image reconstruction aspects, such as temporal resolution, in golden-angle-sampled CS-DCE-MRI. These further suggest that objective measures of image quality may find use in general dynamic MRI applications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".