MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bloch modelling enables robust T2 mapping using retrospective proton density and T2-weighted images from different vendors and sites

2021· article· en· W3158195650 on OpenAlexafffund
Gitanjali Chhetri, Kelly C. McPhee, Alan H. Wilman

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGE HealthcareJohnson and JohnsonIXICOGenentechJanssen Research and DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMerckNational Institute on AgingFujirebio Europe
KeywordsExponential functionBloch equationsImperfectComputer scienceNuclear magnetic resonanceAlgorithmStatisticsPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T2 quantification is commonly attempted by applying an exponential fit to proton density (PD) and transverse relaxation (T2)-weighted fast spin echo (FSE) images. However, inter-site studies have noted systematic differences between vendors in T2 maps computed via standard exponential fitting due to imperfect slice refocusing, different refocusing angles and transmit field (B1+) inhomogeneity. We examine T2 mapping at 3T across 13 sites and two vendors in healthy volunteers from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database using both a standard exponential and a Bloch modelling approach. The standard exponential approach resulted in highly variable T2 values across different sites and vendors. The two-echo fitting method based on Bloch equation modelling of the pulse sequence with prior knowledge of the nominal refocusing angles, slice profiles, and estimated B1+ maps yielded similar T2 values across sites and vendors by accounting for the effects of indirect and stimulated echoes. By modelling the actual refocusing angles used, T2 quantification from PD and T2-weighted images can be applied in studies across multiple sites and vendors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207