ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2023
Robust quantitative susceptibility mapping via approximate message passing with parameter estimation.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensitivity of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping for Clinical Research in Deep Gray Matter.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Accelerated model-based T1, T2* and proton density mapping using a Bayesian approach with automatic hyperparameter estimation.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of processing and analysis methodology on thalamic susceptibility assessment in multiple sclerosis.PloS one · 2025Article
- R-Mixup: Riemannian Mixup for Biological Networks.KDD : proceedings. International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFor quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM), the lack of ground-truth in clinical settings makes it challenging to determine suitable parameters for the dipole inversion. We propose a probabilistic Bayesian approach for QSM with built-in parameter estimation, and incorporate the nonlinear formulation of the dipole inversion to achieve a robust recovery of the susceptibility maps. THEORY: From a Bayesian perspective, the image wavelet coefficients are approximately sparse and modeled by the Laplace distribution. The measurement noise is modeled by a Gaussian-mixture distribution with two components, where the second component is used to model the noise outliers. Through probabilistic inference, the susceptibility map and distribution parameters can be jointly recovered using approximate message passing (AMP).
methodsWe compare our proposed AMP with built-in parameter estimation (AMP-PE) to the state-of-the-art L1-QSM, FANSI, and MEDI approaches on the simulated and in vivo datasets, and perform experiments to explore the optimal settings of AMP-PE. Reproducible code is available at: https://github.com/EmoryCN2L/QSM_AMP_PE.
resultsOn the simulated Sim2Snr1 dataset, AMP-PE achieved the lowest NRMSE, deviation from calcification moment and the highest SSIM, while MEDI achieved the lowest high-frequency error norm. On the in vivo datasets, AMP-PE is robust and successfully recovers the susceptibility maps using the estimated parameters, whereas L1-QSM, FANSI and MEDI typically require additional visual fine-tuning to select or double-check working parameters.
conclusionAMP-PE provides automatic and adaptive parameter estimation for QSM and avoids the subjectivity from the visual fine-tuning step, making it an excellent choice for the clinical setting.
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.