MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388125380 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2023.3329293

Minimizing Measurement-Induced Errors in Viscoelastic MR Elastography

2023· article· en· W4388125380 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Kurtz, Bertrand Wattrisse, Elijah E. W. Van Houten

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsMagnetic resonance elastographyInverse problemElastographyViscoelasticityDisplacement fieldBoundary value problemNoise (video)KinematicsCompressibilityElasticity (physics)IsotropyComputer scienceMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical analysisFinite element methodAcousticsPhysicsMechanicsClassical mechanicsComputer visionOpticsUltrasound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inverse problem that underlies Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) is sensitive to the measurement data and the quality of the results of this tissue elasticity imaging process can be influenced both directly and indirectly by measurement noise. In this work, we apply a coupled adjoint field formulation of the viscoelastic constitutive parameter identification problem, where the indirect influence of noise through applied boundary conditions is avoided. A well-posed formulation of the coupled field problem is obtained through conditions applied to the adjoint field, relieving the computed displacement field from kinematic errors on the boundary. The theoretical framework for this formulation via a nearly incompressible, parallel subdomain-decomposition approach is presented, along with verification and a detailed exploration of the performance of the methods via a numerical simulation study. In addition, the advantages of this novel approach are demonstrated in-vivo in the human brain, showing the ability of the method to obtain viable tissue property maps in difficult configurations, enhancing the accuracy of the method.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207