A correction algorithm for improved magnetic field monitoring with distal field probes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A significant source of artifacts in MRI are field fluctuations. Field monitoring is a new technology that allows measurement of field dynamics during a scan via "field probes," which can be used to improve image reconstruction. Ideally, probes are located within the volume where gradients produce nominally linear field patterns. However, in some situations probes must be located far from isocenter where rapid field variation can arise, leading to erroneous field-monitoring characterizations and images. This work aimed to develop an algorithm that improves the robustness of field dynamics in these situations. METHODS: The algorithm is split into three components. Component 1 calculates field dynamics one spatial order at a time, whereas the second implements a weighted least squares solution based on probe distance. Component 3 then calculates phase residuals and removes the residual phase for distant probes before recalculation. Two volunteers and a phantom were scanned on a 7T MRI using diffusion-weighted sequences, and field monitoring was performed. Image reconstructions were informed with field dynamics calculated conventionally, and with the correction algorithm, after which in vivo images were compared qualitatively and phantom image error was quantitatively assessed. RESULTS: The algorithm was able to correct corrupted field dynamics, resulting in image-quality improvements. Significant artifact reduction was observed when correcting higher-order fits. Stepwise fitting provided the most correction benefit, which was marginally improved when adding the other correction strategies. CONCLUSION: The proposed algorithm can mitigate effects of phase errors in field monitoring, providing improved characterization of field dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".