MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315621534 · doi:10.1002/nbm.4899

Phase‐regularized and displacement‐regularized compressed sensing for fast magnetic resonance elastography

2023· article· en· W4315621534 on OpenAlexaff
Shahed K. Mohammed, Piotr Kozłowski, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueNMR in Biomedicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance elastographyCompressed sensingUndersamplingWaveletImaging phantomComputer scienceRegularization (linguistics)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmMathematicsPhysicsElastographyAcousticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Liver magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is a noninvasive stiffness measurement technique that captures the tissue displacement in the phase of the signal. To limit the scanning time to a single breath‐hold, liver MRE usually involves advanced readout techniques such as simultaneous multislice (SMS) or multishot methods. Furthermore, all these readout techniques require additional in‐plane acceleration using either parallel imaging capabilities, such as sensitivity encoding (SENSE), or ‐space undersampling, such as compressed sensing (CS). However, these methods apply a single regularization function on the complex image. This study aims to design and evaluate methods that use separate regularization on the magnitude and phase of MRE to exploit their distinct spatiotemporal characteristics. Specifically, we introduce two compressed sensing methods. The first method, termed phase‐regularized compressed sensing (PRCS), applies a two‐dimensional total variation (TV) prior to the magnitude and two‐dimensional wavelet regularization to the phase. The second method, termed displacement‐regularized compressed sensing (DRCS), exploits the spatiotemporal redundancy using 3D total variation on the magnitude. Additionally, DRCS includes a displacement fitting function to apply wavelet regularization to the displacement phasor. Both DRCS and PRCS were evaluated with different levels of compression factors in three datasets: an in silico abdomen dataset, an in vitro tissue‐mimicking phantom, and an in vivo liver dataset. The reconstructed images were compared with the full sampled reconstruction, zero‐filling reconstruction, wavelet‐regularized compressed sensing, and a low rank plus sparse reconstruction. The metrics used for quantitative evaluation were the structural similarity index (SSIM) of magnitude (M‐SSIM), displacement (D‐SSIM), and shear modulus (S‐SSIM), and mean shear modulus. Results from highly undersampled in silico and in vitro datasets demonstrate that the DRCS method provides higher reconstruction quality than the conventional compressed sensing method for a wide range of stiffness values. Notably, DRCS provides 24% and 22% increase in D‐SSIM compared with CS for the in silico and in vitro datasets, respectively. Comparison with liver stiffness measured from full sampled data and highly undersampled data (CR=4) demonstrates that the DRCS method provided the strongest correlation ( =0.95), second‐lowest mean bias (−0.18 kPa, lowest for CS with −0.16 kPa), and lowest coefficient of variation (CV=3.6%). Our results demonstrate the potential of using DRCS to improve the reconstruction quality of accelerated MRE.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNMR in BiomedicineSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207