Recommended implementation of quantitative susceptibility mapping for clinical research in the brain: A consensus of the <scp>ISMRM</scp> electro‐magnetic tissue properties study group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides recommendations for implementing QSM for clinical brain research. It is a consensus of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Electro-Magnetic Tissue Properties Study Group. While QSM technical development continues to advance rapidly, the current QSM methods have been demonstrated to be repeatable and reproducible for generating quantitative tissue magnetic susceptibility maps in the brain. However, the many QSM approaches available have generated a need in the neuroimaging community for guidelines on implementation. This article outlines considerations and implementation recommendations for QSM data acquisition, processing, analysis, and publication. We recommend that data be acquired using a monopolar 3D multi-echo gradient echo (GRE) sequence and that phase images be saved and exported in Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format and unwrapped using an exact unwrapping approach. Multi-echo images should be combined before background field removal, and a brain mask created using a brain extraction tool with the incorporation of phase-quality-based masking. Background fields within the brain mask should be removed using a technique based on SHARP or PDF, and the optimization approach to dipole inversion should be employed with a sparsity-based regularization. Susceptibility values should be measured relative to a specified reference, including the common reference region of the whole brain as a region of interest in the analysis. The minimum acquisition and processing details required when reporting QSM results are also provided. These recommendations should facilitate clinical QSM research and promote harmonized data acquisition, analysis, and reporting.
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 | 0.162 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.018 |
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".