Rapid 4D-MRI reconstruction using a deep radial convolutional neural network: Dracula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D and midposition MRI could inform plan adaptation in lung and abdominal MR-guided radiotherapy. We present deep learning-based solutions to overcome long 4D-MRI reconstruction times while maintaining high image quality and short scan times. METHODS: Two 3D U-net deep convolutional neural networks were trained to accelerate the 4D joint MoCo-HDTV reconstruction. For the first network, gridded and joint MoCo-HDTV-reconstructed 4D-MRI were used as input and target data, respectively, whereas the second network was trained to directly calculate the midposition image. For both networks, input and target data had dimensions of 256 × 256 voxels (2D) and 16 respiratory phases. Deep learning-based MRI were verified against joint MoCo-HDTV-reconstructed MRI using the structural similarity index (SSIM) and the naturalness image quality evaluator (NIQE). Moreover, two experienced observers contoured the gross tumour volume and scored the images in a blinded study. RESULTS: ) were each reconstructed from gridded images in only 28 seconds per subject. Excellent agreement was found between deep-learning-based and joint MoCo-HDTV-reconstructed MRI (average SSIM ≥ 0.96, NIQE scores 7.94 and 5.66). Deep-learning-based 4D-MRI were clinically acceptable for target and organ-at-risk delineation. Tumour positions agreed within 0.7 mm on midposition images. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the joint MoCo-HDTV and midposition algorithms can each be approximated by a deep convolutional neural network. This rapid reconstruction of 4D and midposition MRI facilitates online treatment adaptation in thoracic or abdominal MR-guided radiotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".