Scoping review of magnetic resonance motion imaging phantoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To review and analyze the currently available MRI motion phantoms. Publications were collected from the Toronto Metropolitan University Library, PubMed, and IEEE Xplore. Phantoms were categorized based on the motions they generated: linear/cartesian, cardiac-dilative, lung-dilative, rotational, deformation or rolling. Metrics were extracted from each publication to assess the motion mechanisms, construction methods, as well as phantom validation. A total of 60 publications were reviewed, identifying 48 unique motion phantoms. Translational movement was the most common movement (used in 38% of phantoms), followed by cardiac-dilative (27%) movement and rotational movement (23%). The average degrees of freedom for all phantoms were determined to be 1.42. Motion phantom publications lack quantification of their impact on signal-to-noise ratio through standardized testing. At present, there is a lack of phantoms that are designed for multi-role as many currently have few degrees of freedom.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".