Recommended Implementation of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping for Clinical Research in The Brain: A Consensus of the ISMRM Electro-Magnetic Tissue Properties Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides recommendations for implementing quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) for clinical brain research. It is a consensus of the ISMRM Electro-Magnetic Tissue Properties Study Group. While QSM technical development continues to advance rapidly, the current QSM methods have been demonstrated to be repeatable and reproducible for generating quantitative tissue magnetic susceptibility maps in the brain. However, the many QSM approaches available give rise to the need in the neuroimaging community for guidelines on implementation. This article describes relevant considerations and provides specific implementation recommendations for all steps in QSM data acquisition, processing, analysis, and presentation in scientific publications. We recommend that data be acquired using a monopolar 3D multi-echo GRE sequence, that phase images be saved and exported in DICOM format and unwrapped using an exact unwrapping approach. Multi-echo images should be combined before background removal, and a brain mask created using a brain extraction tool with the incorporation of phase-quality-based masking. Background fields should be removed within the brain mask using a technique based on SHARP or PDF, and the optimization approach to dipole inversion should be employed with a sparsity-based regularization. Susceptibility values should be measured relative to a specified reference, including the common reference region of whole brain as a region of interest in the analysis, and QSM results should be reported with - as a minimum - the acquisition and processing specifications listed in the last section of the article. These recommendations should facilitate clinical QSM research and lead to increased harmonization in data acquisition, analysis, and reporting.
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 | 0.172 | 0.254 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.018 |
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".