Quantifying cerebral microbleeds using quantitative susceptibility mapping from magnetization‐prepared rapid gradient‐echo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract T1‐weighted magnetization‐prepared rapid gradient‐echo (MPRAGE) is commonly included in brain studies for structural imaging using magnitude images; however, its phase images can provide an opportunity to assess microbleed burden using quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). This potential application for MPRAGE‐based QSM was evaluated using in vivo and simulated measurements. Possible factors affecting image quality were also explored. Detection sensitivity was evaluated against standard multiecho gradient echo (MEGE) QSM using 3‐T in vivo data of 15 subjects with a combined total of 108 confirmed microbleeds. The two methods were compared based on the microbleed size and susceptibility measurements. In addition, simulations explored the detection sensitivity of MPRAGE‐QSM at different representative magnetic field strengths and echo times using microbleeds of different size, susceptibility, and location. Results showed that in vivo microbleeds appeared to be smaller (× 0.54) and of higher mean susceptibility (× 1.9) on MPRAGE‐QSM than on MEGE‐QSM, but total susceptibility estimates were in closer agreement (slope: 0.97, r2: 0.94), and detection sensitivity was comparable. In simulations, QSM at 1.5 T had a low contrast‐to‐noise ratio that obscured the detection of many microbleeds. Signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) levels at 3 T and above resulted in better contrast and increased detection. The detection rates for microbleeds of minimum one‐voxel diameter and 0.4‐ppm susceptibility were 0.55, 0.80, and 0.88 at SNR levels of 1.5, 3, and 7 T, respectively. Size and total susceptibility estimates were more consistent than mean susceptibility estimates, which showed size‐dependent underestimation. MPRAGE‐QSM provides an opportunity to detect and quantify the size and susceptibility of microbleeds of at least one‐voxel diameter at B0 of 3 T or higher with no additional time cost, when standard T2*‐weighted images are not available or have inadequate spatial resolution. The total susceptibility measure is more robust against sequence variations and might allow combining data from different protocols.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".