MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285201772 · doi:10.1561/116.00000039

Self-Supervised Motion-Corrected Image Reconstruction Network for 4D Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Body Trunk

2022· article· en· W4285201772 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Küstner, Christopher Gilliam, Haikun Qi, Gastão Cruz, Kerstin Hammernik, Thierry Blu, Daniel Rueckert, René M. Botnar, Claudia Prieto, Sergios Gatidis

Bibliographic record

VenueAPSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingTrunkMotion (physics)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Computer scienceNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsMedicineRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Respiratory motion can cause artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of the body trunk if patients cannot hold their breath or triggered acquisitions are not practical. Retrospective correction strategies usually cope with motion by fast imaging sequences under free-movement conditions followed by motion binning based on motion traces. These acquisitions yield sub-Nyquist sampled and motion-resolved k-space data. Motion states are linked to each other by non-rigid deformation fields. Usually, motion registration is formulated in image space which can however be impaired by aliasing artifacts or by estimation from low-resolution images. Subsequently, any motion-corrected reconstruction can be biased by errors in the deformation fields. In this work, we propose a deep-learning based motion-corrected 4D (3D spatial + time) image reconstruction which combines a non-rigid registration network and a 4D reconstruction network. Non-rigid motion is estimated in k-space and incorporated into the reconstruction network. The proposed method is evaluated on in-vivo 4D motion-resolved magnetic resonance images of patients with suspected liver or lung metastases and healthy subjects. The proposed approach provides 4D motion-corrected images and deformation fields. It enables a ~ 14 × accelerated acquisition with a 25fold faster reconstruction than comparable approaches under consistent preservation of image quality for changing patients and motion patterns.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAPSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information ProcessingSame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207