ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering
Predicting human detection performance in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with total variation and wavelet sparsity regularizers.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Machine Learning-Based MRI Reconstruction Using Digital Image Quality Phantoms.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Optimizing data acquisition in undersampled magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using two alternative forced choice (2-AFC) and search tasks.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2023Article
- Modeling human observer detection in undersampled magnetic resonance imaging reconstruction with total variation and wavelet sparsity regularization.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two common regularization methods in reconstruction of magnetic resonance images are total variation (TV) which restricts the magnitude of the gradient in the reconstructed image and wavelet sparsity which assumes that the object being imaged is sparse in the wavelet domain. These regularization methods have resulted in images with fewer undersampling artifacts and less noise but introduce their own artifacts. In this work, we extend previous results on modeling of human observer performance for images using TV regularization to also predict human detection performance using wavelet regularization and a combination of wavelet and TV regularization. Small lesions were placed in the coil k-space data for fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) brain images from the fastMRI database. The data was undersampled using an acceleration factor of 3.48. The undersampled data was reconstructed using a range of regularization parameters for both the TV and wavelet regularization. The internal noise level for the sparse difference-of-Gaussians (S-DOG) model observer was chosen to match the average human percent correct in two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) studies with a signal known exactly with variable backgrounds and no regularization. The S-DOG model largely tracked the human observer results except at large values of the regularization parameter where it outperformed the average human observer. We found that the regularization with either constraint or in combination did not improve human observer performance for this task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.