MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392715329 · doi:10.1002/mrm.30083

Inline automatic quality control of <scp>2D</scp> phase‐contrast flow <scp>MRI</scp> for subject‐specific scan time adaptation

2024· article· en· W4392715329 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Daudé, Rajiv Ramasawmy, Ahsan Javed, Robert J. Lederman, Kelvin Chow, Adrienne Campbell‐Washburn

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSiemens (Canada)
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNHLBI Division of Intramural ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsImage qualitySegmentationAortaComputer scienceContrast (vision)Spiral (railway)PopulationArtificial intelligenceNuclear medicineComputer visionBiomedical engineeringMedicineImage (mathematics)MathematicsCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To develop an inline automatic quality control to achieve consistent diagnostic image quality with subject-specific scan time, and to demonstrate this method for 2D phase-contrast flow MRI to reach a predetermined SNR. METHODS: We designed a closed-loop feedback framework between image reconstruction and data acquisition to intermittently check SNR (every 20 s) and automatically stop the acquisition when a target SNR is achieved. A free-breathing 2D pseudo-golden-angle spiral phase-contrast sequence was modified to listen for image-quality messages from the reconstructions. Ten healthy volunteers and 1 patient were imaged at 0.55 T. Target SNR was selected based on retrospective analysis of cardiac output error, and performance of the automatic SNR-driven "stop" was assessed inline. RESULTS: SNR calculation and automated segmentation was feasible within 20 s with inline deployment. The SNR-driven acquisition time was 2 min 39 s ± 67 s (aorta) and 3 min ± 80 s (main pulmonary artery) with a min/max acquisition time of 1 min 43 s/4 min 52 s (aorta) and 1 min 43 s/5 min 50 s (main pulmonary artery) across 6 healthy volunteers, while ensuring a diagnostic measurement with relative absolute error in quantitative flow measurement lower than 2.1% (aorta) and 6.3% (main pulmonary artery). CONCLUSION: The inline quality control enables subject-specific optimized scan times while ensuring consistent diagnostic image quality. The distribution of automated stopping times across the population revealed the value of a subject-specific scan time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207