Effect of MR head coil geometry on deep‐learning‐based MR image reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether parallel imaging-imposed geometric coil constraints can be relaxed when using a deep learning (DL)-based image reconstruction method as opposed to a traditional non-DL method. THEORY AND METHODS: Traditional and DL-based MR image reconstruction approaches operate in fundamentally different ways: Traditional methods solve a system of equations derived from the image data whereas DL methods use data/target pairs to learn a generalizable reconstruction model. Two sets of head coil profiles were evaluated: (1) 8-channel and (2) 32-channel geometries. A DL model was compared to conjugate gradient SENSE (CG-SENSE) and L1-wavelet compressed sensing (CS) through quantitative metrics and visual assessment as coil overlap was increased. RESULTS: Results were generally consistent between experiments. As coil overlap increased, there was a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in performance in most cases for all methods. The decrease was most pronounced for CG-SENSE, and the DL models significantly outperformed (p < 0.001) their non-DL counterparts in all scenarios. CS showed improved robustness to coil overlap and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) versus CG-SENSE, but had quantitatively and visually poorer reconstructions characterized by blurriness as compared to DL. DL showed virtually no change in performance across SNR and very small changes across coil overlap. CONCLUSION: The DL image reconstruction method produced images that were robust to coil overlap and of higher quality than CG-SENSE and CS. This suggests that geometric coil design constraints can be relaxed when using DL reconstruction methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".