Quantitative Ischemic Lesions of Portable Low–Field Strength MRI Using Deep Learning–Based Super-Resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep learning-based synthetic super-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (SynthMRI) may improve the quantitative lesion performance of portable low-field strength magnetic resonance imaging (LF-MRI). The aim of this study is to evaluate whether SynthMRI improves the diagnostic performance of LF-MRI in assessing ischemic lesions. METHODS: We retrospectively included 178 stroke patients and 104 healthy controls with both LF-MRI and high-field strength magnetic resonance imaging (HF-MRI) examinations. Using HF-MRI as the ground truth, the deep learning-based super-resolution framework (SCUNet [Swin-Conv-UNet]) was pretrained using large-scale open-source data sets to generate SynthMRI images from LF-MRI images. Participants were split into a training set (64.2%) to fine-tune the pretrained SCUNet, and a testing set (35.8%) to evaluate the performance of SynthMRI. Sensitivity and specificity of LF-MRI and SynthMRI were assessed. Agreement with HF-MRI for Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score in the anterior and posterior circulation (diffusion-weighted imaging-Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score and diffusion-weighted imaging-posterior circulation Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score) was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Agreement with HF-MRI for lesion volume and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) within lesions was assessed using both ICCs and Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: >0.35). Furthermore, for lesions during various poststroke phases, SynthMRI exhibited significantly higher agreement with HF-MRI than LF-MRI during the early hyperacute and subacute phases. CONCLUSIONS: SynthMRI demonstrates high agreement with HF-MRI in detecting and quantifying ischemic lesions and is better than LF-MRI, particularly for lesions during the early hyperacute and subacute phases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".