Deep‐learning‐based motion correction using multichannel MRI data: a study using simulated artifacts in the fastMRI dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning presents a generalizable solution for motion correction requiring no pulse sequence modifications or additional hardware, but previous networks have all been applied to coil-combined data. Multichannel MRI data provide a degree of spatial encoding that may be useful for motion correction. We hypothesize that incorporating deep learning for motion correction prior to coil combination will improve results. A conditional generative adversarial network was trained using simulated rigid motion artifacts in brain images acquired at multiple sites with multiple contrasts (not limited to healthy subjects). We compared the performance of deep-learning-based motion correction on individual channel images (single-channel model) with that performed after coil combination (channel-combined model). We also investigate simultaneous motion correction of all channel data from an image volume (multichannel model). The single-channel model significantly (p < 0.0001) improved mean absolute error, with an average 50.9% improvement compared with the uncorrected images. This was significantly (p < 0.0001) better than the 36.3% improvement achieved by the channel-combined model (conventional approach). The multichannel model provided no significant improvement in quantitative measures of image quality compared with the uncorrected images. Results were independent of the presence of pathology, and generalizable to a new center unseen during training. Performing motion correction on single-channel images prior to coil combination provided an improvement in performance compared with conventional deep-learning-based motion correction. Improved deep learning methods for retrospective correction of motion-affected MR images could reduce the need for repeat scans if applied in a clinical setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".