REVIEW 1 cited by
Motion Corrected Multishot MRI Reconstruction Using Generative Networks with Sensitivity Encoding
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Multishot Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a promising imaging modality that can produce a high-resolution image with relatively less data acquisition time. The downside of multishot MRI is that it is very sensitive to subject motion and even small amounts of motion during the scan can produce artifacts in the final MR image that may cause misdiagnosis. Numerous efforts have been made to address this issue; however, all of these proposals are limited in terms of how much motion they can correct and the required computational time. In this paper, we propose a novel generative networks based conjugate gradient SENSE (CG-SENSE) reconstruction framework for motion correction in multishot MRI. The proposed framework first employs CG-SENSE reconstruction to produce the motion-corrupted image and then a generative adversarial network (GAN) is used to correct the motion artifacts. The proposed method has been rigorously evaluated on synthetically corrupted data on varying degrees of motion, numbers of shots, and encoding trajectories. Our analyses (both quantitative as well as qualitative/visual analysis) establishes that the proposed method significantly robust and outperforms state-of-the-art motion correction techniques and also reduces severalfold of computational times.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Biological Brain Age Estimation using Sex-Aware Adversarial Variational Autoencoder with Multimodal Neuroimages
A multimodal brain-age estimator with sex input is presented, but its reported advantage over prior methods rests on an invalid comparison across different test datasets.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.