MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401791283 · doi:10.1002/nbm.5228

Reducing thermal noise in high‐resolution quantitative magnetic resonance imaging rotating frame relaxation mapping of the human brain at 3 T

2024· article· en· W4401791283 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Ponticorvo, Antonietta Canna, Steen Moeller, Mehmet Akçakaya, Gregory J. Metzger, Pavel Filip, Lynn E. Eberly, Shalom Michaeli, Silvia Mangia

Bibliographic record

VenueNMR in Biomedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMetric (unit)Noise (video)Nuclear magnetic resonanceArtificial intelligenceImage resolutionNoise reductionResolution (logic)Diffusion imagingMathematicsFrame (networking)Magnetic resonance imagingPattern recognition (psychology)PhysicsImage (mathematics)Computer scienceMedicineDiffusion MRI

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantitative maps of rotating frame relaxation (RFR) time constants are sensitive and useful magnetic resonance imaging tools with which to evaluate tissue integrity in vivo. However, to date, only moderate image resolutions of 1.6 x 1.6 x 3.6 mm3 have been used for whole‐brain coverage RFR mapping in humans at 3 T. For more precise morphometrical examinations, higher spatial resolutions are desirable. Towards achieving the long‐term goal of increasing the spatial resolution of RFR mapping without increasing scan times, we explore the use of the recently introduced Transform domain NOise Reduction with DIstribution Corrected principal component analysis (T‐NORDIC) algorithm for thermal noise reduction. RFR acquisitions at 3 T were obtained from eight healthy participants (seven males and one female) aged 52 ± 20 years, including adiabatic T1ρ, T2ρ, and nonadiabatic Relaxation Along a Fictitious Field (RAFF) in the rotating frame of rank n = 4 (RAFF4) with both 1.6 x 1.6 x 3.6 mm3 and 1.25 x 1.25 x 2 mm3 image resolutions. We compared RFR values and their confidence intervals (CIs) obtained from fitting the denoised versus nondenoised images, at both voxel and regional levels separately for each resolution and RFR metric. The comparison of metrics obtained from denoised versus nondenoised images was performed with a two‐sample paired t‐test and statistical significance was set at p less than 0.05 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The use of T‐NORDIC on the RFR images prior to the fitting procedure decreases the uncertainty of parameter estimation (lower CIs) at both spatial resolutions. The effect was particularly prominent at high‐spatial resolution for RAFF4. Moreover, T‐NORDIC did not degrade map quality, and it had minimal impact on the RFR values. Denoising RFR images with T‐NORDIC improves parameter estimation while preserving the image quality and accuracy of all RFR maps, ultimately enabling high‐resolution RFR mapping in scan times that are suitable for clinical settings.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNMR in BiomedicineSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207