Magnetic resonance imaging at 9.4 T: the Maastricht journey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 9.4 T scanner in Maastricht is a whole-body magnet with head gradients and parallel RF transmit capability. At the time of the design, it was conceptualized to be one of the best fMRI scanners in the world, but it has also been used for anatomical and diffusion imaging. 9.4 T offers increases in sensitivity and contrast, but the technical ultra-high field (UHF) challenges, such as field inhomogeneities and constraints set by RF power deposition, are exacerbated compared to 7 T. This article reviews some of the 9.4 T work done in Maastricht. Functional imaging experiments included blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) and blood-volume weighted (VASO) fMRI using different readouts. BOLD benefits from shorter T2* at 9.4 T while VASO from longer T1. We show examples of both ex vivo and in vivo anatomical imaging. For many applications, pTx and optimized coils are essential to harness the full potential of 9.4 T. Our experience shows that, while considerable effort was required compared to our 7 T scanner, we could obtain high-quality anatomical and functional data, which illustrates the potential of MR acquisitions at even higher field strengths. The practical challenges of working with a relatively unique system are also discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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".