Recovering SWI‐filtered phase data using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a deep neural network to recover filtered phase from clinical MR phase images to enable the computation of QSMs. METHODS: Eighteen deep learning networks were trained to recover combinations of 13 SWI phase-filtering pipelines. SWI-filtered data were computed offline from five multiorientation, multiecho MRI scans yielding 132 3D volumes (118/7/7 training/validation/testing). Two experiments were conducted to show the efficacy of the networks. First, using QSM processing, local fields were computed from the raw phase and subsequently filtered using the SWI-filtering pipelines. The networks were then trained to invert the filtering operation. Second, the trained networks were fine-tuned to recover unfiltered local fields from filtered local fields computed by applying QSM processing to the SWI-filtered phase. Susceptibility maps were computed from the recovered fields and compared with gold standard multiple orientation sampling reconstructions. RESULTS: Susceptibility maps computed from the raw phase using standard QSM processing have a normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) of 0.732 ± 0.095. Susceptibility maps computed from the recovered phase obtained NRMSEs of 0.725 ± 0.095. The network trained using all 13 processing methods generalized well, obtaining NRMSEs of 0.725 ± 0.89 on filters it has not seen, while matching the reconstruction accuracy of networks trained to recover a single filter. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to recover SWI-filtered phase using deep learning. QSM can be computed from the recovered phase from SWI acquisition with comparable accuracy to standard QSM processing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".