Nonuniform sliding-window reconstruction for accelerated dual contrast agent quantification with MR fingerprinting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective MR fingerprinting (MRF) can enable preclinical studies of cell tracking by quantifying multiple contrast agents simultaneously, but faster scan times are required for in vivo applications. Sliding window (SW)-MRF is one option for accelerating MRF, but standard implementations are not sufficient to preserve the accuracy of T2*, which is critical for tracking iron-labelled cells in vivo. Purpose To develop a SW approach to MRF which preserves the T2* accuracy required for accelerated concentration mapping of iron-labelled cells on single-channel preclinical systems. Methods A nonuniform SW was applied to the MRF sequence and dictionary. Segments of the sequence most sensitive to T2* were subject to a shorter window length, preserving the T2* sensitivity. Phantoms containing iron-labelled CD8+ T cells and gadolinium were used to compare 24× undersampled uniform and nonuniform SW-MRF parameter maps. Dual concentration maps were generated for both uniform and nonuniform MRF and compared. Results Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient, compared to gold standard parameter values, was much greater for nonuniform SW-MRF than for uniform SW-MRF. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant difference between nonuniform SW-MRF and gold standards. Nonuniform SW-MRF outperformed the uniform SW-MRF concentration maps for all parameters, providing a balance between T2* sensitivity of short window lengths, and SNR of longer window lengths. Conclusions Nonuniform SW-MRF improves the accuracy of matching compared to uniform SW-MRF, allowing higher accelerated concentration mapping for preclinical systems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".