MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clean Self-Supervised MRI Reconstruction from Noisy, Sub-Sampled Training Data with Robust SSDU

2024· article· en· W4405698662 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles B. Millard, Mark Chiew

Bibliographic record

VenueBioengineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilRoyal Academy of EngineeringNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCanada Research ChairsWellcome Trust
KeywordsUndersamplingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNoise reductionNoise (video)Pattern recognition (psychology)Benchmark (surveying)InferenceDeep learningMachine learningSupervised learningData miningArtificial neural networkImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most existing methods for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reconstruction with deep learning use fully supervised training, which assumes that a fully sampled dataset with a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is available for training. In many circumstances, however, such a dataset is highly impractical or even technically infeasible to acquire. Recently, a number of self-supervised methods for MRI reconstruction have been proposed, which use sub-sampled data only. However, the majority of such methods, such as Self-Supervised Learning via Data Undersampling (SSDU), are susceptible to reconstruction errors arising from noise in the measured data. In response, we propose Robust SSDU, which provably recovers clean images from noisy, sub-sampled training data by simultaneously estimating missing k-space samples and denoising the available samples. Robust SSDU trains the reconstruction network to map from a further noisy and sub-sampled version of the data to the original, singly noisy, and sub-sampled data and applies an additive Noisier2Noise correction term upon inference. We also present a related method, Noiser2Full, that recovers clean images when noisy, fully sampled data are available for training. Both proposed methods are applicable to any network architecture, are straightforward to implement, and have a similar computational cost to standard training. We evaluate our methods on the multi-coil fastMRI brain dataset with novel denoising-specific architecture and find that it performs competitively with a benchmark trained on clean, fully sampled data.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioengineeringSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207