Quantifying stability of parameter estimates for <i>in vivo</i> nearly incompressible transversely-isotropic brain MR elastography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Easily computable quality metrics for measured medical data at point-of-care are important for imaging technologies involving offline reconstruction. Accordingly, we developed a new data quality metric for in vivo transversely-isotropic (TI) magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) based on a generalization of the widely accepted octahedral shear-strain calculation. The metric uses MRE displacement data and an estimate of the TI property field to yield a ‘stability map’ which predicts regions of low versus high accuracy in the resulting material property reconstructions. We can also calculate an average TI parameter stability (TIPS) score over all voxels in a region of interest for a given measurement to indicate how reliable the recovered mechanical property estimate for the region is expected to be. The calculation is rapid and places little demand on computing resources compared to the computationally intensive material property reconstruction from non-linear inversion (TI-NLI) of displacement fields, making it ideal for point-of-care evaluation of data quality. We test the predictions of the stability map for both simulated phantoms and in vivo human brain data. We used a range of different displacement datasets from vibrations applied in the anterior-posterior (AP), left-right (LR) and combined AP + LR directions. The TIPS and variability maps (noise sensitivity or variation from the mean of repeated MRE scans) were consistently anti-correlated. Notably, Spearman correlation coefficients ∣R∣>0.6 were found between variability and TIPS score for individual white matter tracts with in vivo data. These observations demonstrate the reliability and promise of this data quality metric to screen data rapidly in realistic clinical MRE 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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".