Quantifying <scp>3D</scp> MR fingerprinting (<scp>3D‐MRF</scp>) reproducibility across subjects, sessions, and scanners automatically using <scp>MNI</scp> atlases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Quantitative MRI techniques such as MR fingerprinting (MRF) promise more objective and comparable measurements of tissue properties at the point‐of‐care than weighted imaging. However, few direct cross‐modal comparisons of MRF's repeatability and reproducibility versus weighted acquisitions have been performed. This work proposes a novel fully automated pipeline for quantitatively comparing cross‐modal imaging performance in vivo via atlas‐based sampling. Methods We acquire whole‐brain 3D‐MRF, turbo spin echo, and MPRAGE sequences three times each on two scanners across 10 subjects, for a total of 60 multimodal datasets. The proposed automated registration and analysis pipeline uses linear and nonlinear registration to align all qualitative and quantitative DICOM stacks to Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) 152 space, then samples each dataset's native space through transformation inversion to compare performance within atlas regions across subjects, scanners, and repetitions. Results Voxel values within MRF‐derived maps were found to be more repeatable (σT1 = 1.90, σT2 = 3.20) across sessions than vendor‐reconstructed MPRAGE (σT1w = 6.04) or turbo spin echo (σT2w = 5.66) images. Additionally, MRF was found to be more reproducible across scanners (σT1 = 2.21, σT2 = 3.89) than either qualitative modality (σT1w = 7.84, σT2w = 7.76). Notably, differences between repeatability and reproducibility of in vivo MRF were insignificant, unlike the weighted images. Conclusion MRF data from many sessions and scanners can potentially be treated as a single dataset for harmonized analysis or longitudinal comparisons without the additional regularization steps needed for qualitative modalities.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".