A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of parameter optimization methods for quantitative susceptibility mapping. | LitMetric

Comparison of parameter optimization methods for quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Magn Reson Med

Department of Electrical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Published: January 2021


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) is usually performed by minimizing a functional with data fidelity and regularization terms. A weighting parameter controls the balance between these terms. There is a need for techniques to find the proper balance that avoids artifact propagation and loss of details. Finding the point of maximum curvature in the L-curve is a popular choice, although it is slow, often unreliable when using variational penalties, and has a tendency to yield overregularized results.

Methods: We propose 2 alternative approaches to control the balance between the data fidelity and regularization terms: 1) searching for an inflection point in the log-log domain of the L-curve, and 2) comparing frequency components of QSM reconstructions. We compare these methods against the conventional L-curve and U-curve approaches.

Results: Our methods achieve predicted parameters that are better correlated with RMS error, high-frequency error norm, and structural similarity metric-based parameter optimizations than those obtained with traditional methods. The inflection point yields less overregularization and lower errors than traditional alternatives. The frequency analysis yields more visually appealing results, although with larger RMS error.

Conclusion: Our methods provide a robust parameter optimization framework for variational penalties in QSM reconstruction. The L-curve-based zero-curvature search produced almost optimal results for typical QSM acquisition settings. The frequency analysis method may use a 1.5 to 2.0 correction factor to apply it as a stand-alone method for a wider range of signal-to-noise-ratio settings. This approach may also benefit from fast search algorithms such as the binary search to speed up the process.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7722179PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28435DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

parameter optimization
8
quantitative susceptibility
8
susceptibility mapping
8
data fidelity
8
fidelity regularization
8
regularization terms
8
variational penalties
8
inflection point
8
frequency analysis
8
methods
5

Similar Publications