MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4289362803 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.12473

A Hybrid Frequency-domain/Image-domain Deep Network for Magnetic\n Resonance Image Reconstruction

2018· preprint· en· W4289362803 on OpenAlexaff
Roberto Martins de Souza, Richard Frayne

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUndersamplingIterative reconstructionNyquist–Shannon sampling theoremCompressed sensingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFrequency domainImage (mathematics)k-spaceSampling (signal processing)ResidualImage qualityComputer visionHeuristicFast Fourier transformFourier transformAlgorithmArtificial neural networkDeep learningMathematicsFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decreasing magnetic resonance (MR) image acquisition times can potentially\nreduce procedural cost and make MR examinations more accessible. Compressed\nsensing (CS)-based image reconstruction methods, for example, decrease MR\nacquisition time by reconstructing high-quality images from data that were\noriginally sampled at rates inferior to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.\nIn this work we propose a hybrid architecture that works both in the k-space\n(or frequency-domain) and the image (or spatial) domains. Our network is\ncomposed of a complex-valued residual U-net in the k-space domain, an inverse\nFast Fourier Transform (iFFT) operation, and a real-valued U-net in the image\ndomain. Our experiments demonstrated, using MR raw k-space data, that the\nproposed hybrid approach can potentially improve CS reconstruction compared to\ndeep-learning networks that operate only in the image domain. In this study we\ncompare our method with four previously published deep neural networks and\nexamine their ability to reconstruct images that are subsequently used to\ngenerate regional volume estimates. We evaluated undersampling ratios of 75%\nand 80%. Our technique was ranked second in the quantitative analysis, but\nqualitative analysis indicated that our reconstruction performed the best in\nhard to reconstruct regions, such as the cerebellum. All images reconstructed\nwith our method were successfully post-processed, and showed good volumetry\nagreement compared with the fully sampled reconstruction measures.\n

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→