Motion compensated structured low‐rank reconstruction for 3D multi‐shot EPI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The 3D multi-shot EPI imaging offers several benefits including higher SNR and high isotropic resolution compared to 2D single shot EPI. However, it suffers from shot-to-shot inconsistencies arising from physiologically induced phase variations and bulk motion. This work proposed a motion compensated structured low-rank (mcSLR) reconstruction method to address both issues for 3D multi-shot EPI. METHODS: Structured low-rank reconstruction has been successfully used in previous work to deal with inter-shot phase variations for 3D multi-shot EPI imaging. It circumvents the estimation of phase variations by reconstructing an individual image for each phase state which are then sum-of-squares combined, exploiting their linear interdependency encoded in structured low-rank constraints. However, structured low-rank constraints become less effective in the presence of inter-shot motion, which corrupts image magnitude consistency and invalidates the linear relationship between shots. Thus, this work jointly models inter-shot phase variations and motion corruptions by incorporating rigid motion compensation for structured low-rank reconstruction, where motion estimates are obtained in a fully data-driven way without relying on external hardware or imaging navigators. RESULTS: Simulation and in vivo experiments at 7T have demonstrated that the mcSLR method can effectively reduce image artifacts and improve the robustness of 3D multi-shot EPI, outperforming existing methods which only address inter-shot phase variations or motion, but not both. CONCLUSION: The proposed mcSLR reconstruction compensates for rigid motion, and thus improves the validity of structured low-rank constraints, resulting in improved robustness of 3D multi-shot EPI to both inter-shot motion and phase variations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".