Motion Artifact Reduction Using U-Net Model with Three-Dimensional Simulation-Based Datasets for Brain Magnetic Resonance Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to remove motion artifacts from brain magnetic resonance (MR) images using a U-Net model. In addition, a simulation method was proposed to increase the size of the dataset required to train the U-Net model while avoiding the overfitting problem. The volume data were rotated and translated with random intensity and frequency, in three dimensions, and were iterated as the number of slices in the volume data. Then, for every slice, a portion of the motion-free k-space data was replaced with motion k-space data, respectively. In addition, based on the transposed k-space data, we acquired MR images with motion artifacts and residual maps and constructed datasets. For a quantitative evaluation, the root mean square error (RMSE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), coefficient of correlation (CC), and universal image quality index (UQI) were measured. The U-Net models for motion artifact reduction with the residual map-based dataset showed the best performance across all evaluation factors. In particular, the RMSE, PSNR, CC, and UQI improved by approximately 5.35×, 1.51×, 1.12×, and 1.01×, respectively, and the U-Net model with the residual map-based dataset was compared with the direct images. In conclusion, our simulation-based dataset demonstrates that U-Net models can be effectively trained for motion artifact reduction.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".