Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

This paper extends the open-source BART toolbox so that the same MRI pulse sequence runs both live on a clinical scanner and as an exported Pulseq file, and it shows that the resulting quantitative maps match within test–retest variability.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 13:25 UTC pith:CVXRUWCM

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful open-source sequence framework for computational MRI, with a slightly over-stated 'exact' reproduction claim; worth refereeing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19099 v1 pith:CVXRUWCM submitted 2026-07-21 physics.med-ph

BART Online Open-Source Sequence Toolbox for Computational MRI

Daniel Mackner , Philip Schaten , Markus Huemer , Viktoria Buchegger , Moritz Blumenthal , Xiaoqing Wang , Martin Uecker This is my paper
classification physics.med-ph PACS 87.61.-c
keywords open-sourcepulse sequence designBARTPulseqquantitative MRImodel-based reconstructionradial FLASHreproducibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Modern computational MRI couples acquisition and reconstruction so tightly that published methods are often irreproducible: sequence details live in vendor-specific code. This paper extends the open-source BART toolbox with a sequence-development framework that describes a scan as generic events (gradients, RF, ADC, triggers), then runs those events through two interpreters: a vendor-specific driver for live scanning with online parameter adjustment, and an offline tool that recomputes the same events and exports them in the Pulseq format. The central claim is that the offline Pulseq replay is physically equivalent to the online scan: for two quantitative methods—single-shot inversion-recovery radial FLASH for T1 and multi-echo radial FLASH for joint water/fat R2* and B0 mapping—model-based reconstructions from online and offline acquisitions agree, with differences comparable to test–retest variability. If true, this means one open-source implementation can serve both clinical practice (where parameters must adapt per patient) and long-term, scanner-independent reproducibility.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that a single event-based sequence representation can drive a clinical scanner and an offline simulator-equivalent without loss of fidelity. Sequences are built from parametrized blocks—gradients decomposed into triangle splines, RF pulses with phase/frequency/shape, ADC with dwell-time and loop indices, trigger/wait events—prepared just-in-time by the online driver and recomputed offline by the bart seq command. For the two proof-of-concept qMRI methods, the authors report that T1 maps and R2*/B0 maps from online acquisition and from the exported Pulseq file agree at the level of test–retest repeats; for off-center FOVs, a provided correction script restores the phase

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the event abstraction plus its dual interpreters. A sequence is a list of parametrized events (gradient triangles, RF pulses, ADC periods, wait/trigger) grouped into blocks; gradients are integrated over the raster to preserve zeroth moments, and the midtime is the phase reference. The online path compiles BART as a dynamic library and links it to a vendor-specific driver sequence that checks parameter feasibility, prepares events just-in-time, and exposes a custom UI; the offline path runs bart seq, which reproduces the same timings and waveforms and writes a Pulseq .seq file, splitting blocks to respect Pulseq's one-RF/one-ADC-per-block limit. A run-time versi

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands on the assumption that both the live driver and the Pulseq exporter execute the exact same event stream, preserving every gradient moment, RF phase, timing, and trajectory detail; if either interpreter misinterprets an event or loses a phase or timing during conversion, online and offline scans become physically different and the demonstrated agreement would not generalize.

What would settle it

Measure the same phantom with a deliberately introduced one-raster-step (e.g., 10 µs) delay on the readout gradient in the sequence definition, once online and once via the exported Pulseq file. If the raw k-space data from the two paths differ in a way that cannot be removed by a global phase/time shift (beyond B0 drift), the equivalence claim fails; if they remain identical, the two interpreters demonstrably share exact timing semantics.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Researchers can distribute a single BART sequence definition that is both usable interactively on a scanner and replayable offline, eliminating the usual double implementation of sequence and reconstruction.
  • The Pulseq export makes a recorded acquisition portable to other vendors' scanners and to Bloch simulators, so a study's acquisition can be re-run or simulated exactly as published.
  • For the demonstrated qMRI methods, quantitative maps are not measurably degraded by the offline path, meaning multi-center or longitudinal studies could archive the .seq file plus reconstruction code as the method record.
  • The automatic log file and versioned library pairing make each scan self-documenting, aiding audits and debugging of failed acquisitions.
  • The offline command also recovers k-space trajectory, sample times, and phases needed for model-based reconstruction, so the reconstruction can consume faithful metadata rather than approximate trajectories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the equivalence holds across harsher gradient loads (shorter raster times, higher slew rates), the same pair of interpreters could serve as a cross-vendor quality-assurance phantom: scan once online, once via Pulseq, and compare maps.
  • The event abstraction decouples sequence logic from hardware, so porting to a second vendor should require only rewriting the thin driver layer; that would let the field distribute one canonical sequence implementation instead of per-vendor rewrites.
  • Because the offline path is deterministic and fast, it enables gradient-based or reinforcement-learning sequence optimization in simulation, with the winning sequence then run online without translation to another language.
  • A natural stress test is to verify the equivalence for moving subjects (e.g., cardiac) with retrospective gating, where timing jitter between triggers and spokes might expose subtle differences between the two interpreters that static phantoms mask.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper describes an extension of the BART toolbox into a full end-to-end framework for computational MRI: a sequence-programming layer, a vendor-specific driver sequence (BOOST) for online execution on Siemens scanners with real-time parameter adjustment, and an offline Pulseq export path. The authors implement two quantitative MRI applications—single-shot inversion-recovery radial FLASH for T1 mapping and multi-echo radial FLASH for joint R2*/B0 mapping—and validate reproducibility by comparing online acquisitions with offline Pulseq acquisitions in phantom and in a single healthy volunteer. The central claim is that the same sequence can be reproduced exactly offline via Pulseq, and that quantitative maps agree after a retrospective correction for non-Cartesian FOV-shift phase inconsistencies.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable contribution to reproducible computational MRI. The framework integrates sequence design, reconstruction, and data storage in one open-source ecosystem, which is a practical step toward end-to-end reproducibility. The authors provide open-source code, a Zenodo data release, and a continuous-integration test pipeline—these are concrete strengths that support the framework's maintainability. The quantitative applications are nontrivial and the empirical comparisons, while limited, are designed to address the online/offline equivalence question directly rather than by assumption. The main risk is that the strength of the 'exact reproduction' claim exceeds what the evidence supports, given the phase-correction step and the single-subject, partially qualitative validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §3.2] The central claim of 'exact offline reproduction' (Abstract) is not supported as stated. Section 3.2 states that Pulseq acquisitions of non-Cartesian sequences are 'affected by phase inconsistencies' and require a retrospective correction using the known FOV shift to match online data. Thus the offline acquisition is not equivalent to the online one; equivalence is restored only by a data-dependent post-processing step. The residual error after this correction is not quantified. Because the quantitative-map agreement is an indirect probe of sequence fidelity (model-based reconstruction can tolerate small systematic errors), the paper should either (i) soften the 'exact' claim to 'equivalent after the prescribed correction' or (ii) provide a quantitative upper bound on the residual k-space/image/parameter differences after correction. This is load-bearing for the validation logic.
  2. [§3.1, §4, Figure 7] The in vivo validation rests on a single healthy volunteer (Section 3.1), and the R2*/B0 comparison in Figure 7 is presented only visually ('Good agreement ... demonstrated by low differences'), without numerical summary. The claim in the Abstract that 'quantitative parameter maps ... agree' is therefore not quantitatively supported for the R2*/B0 application. Please provide ROI-based or voxel-wise statistics (e.g., mean/SD of differences, Bland-Altman limits) for these maps, and ideally at least one additional subject or an explicit statement that the proof-of-concept is limited to single-subject demonstration.
  3. [§4] For the T1 comparisons, the paper reports that online-vs-Pulseq differences are 'similar' to test-retest, but it does not report the actual test-retest variability numbers. In the cardiac T1 case, the online-vs-Pulseq mean difference is 10 ms with SD 20 ms; without the corresponding test-retest values, 'similar' is ambiguous. If test-retest SD is also ~20 ms, this does not establish small absolute differences between acquisition modes. Please report test-retest statistics alongside the online-vs-Pulseq statistics for all quantitative comparisons.
  4. [§2.2, §2.3] The equivalence of online and offline acquisitions relies on the assumption that the vendor driver and the Pulseq exporter preserve all RF phases, gradient moments, timings, and block splitting. The validation checks raw data (Fig. 3) only after removing a global complex scaling factor, which can hide systematic phase errors, and only for isocenter/continuous readouts. This does not cover RF spoiling phases, trigger delays, or the block-splitting introduced in Pulseq export (§2.3). The manuscript should state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, validate a sequence with FOV shift and triggers directly (e.g., compare trajectories or measure a local phase map) to support the generalization of the equivalence claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract/Data Availability] 'BOOST' is used in the title but defined only in the Data Availability Statement; please define it at first use in the abstract or introduction.
  2. [§2.2] 'Completely disentangle' is an overstatement given the required digital signature and mutual version check; suggest 'largely' or 'to the extent possible'.
  3. [§3.4, Eq. (5)] The symbol STEM is used before being fully defined; clarify that it denotes the signal equation for the m-th echo.
  4. [§3.2] In the code block, the comment says 'shift of 100mm in y' while the parameter is 0.1; make the units explicit (0.1 m = 100 mm).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No substantive circularity: the online/offline equivalence claim is an empirical validation, not a derived prediction that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that Pulseq export allows exact offline reproduction of the online acquisition—is established by direct experimental comparison, not by deriving a result from an assumed input. Online and offline acquisitions are separate measurement arms, reconstructed with the same model-based pipeline, and the observed differences are benchmarked against test-retest variability (Section 4, Figures 3–7). No parameter is fitted to force the online and offline maps to agree. The retrospective FOV-shift correction in Section 3.2 applies the known, intended FOV shift to Pulseq data; it is not tuned against the reconstructed parameter maps and is itself validated against isocenter and online acquisitions, so it does not constitute fitted-input-called-prediction. The paper openly qualifies the 'exact' offline reproduction claim by describing phase inconsistencies for non-Cartesian Pulseq acquisitions and the required correction step, which is a limitation or correctness consideration rather than a circular step. The many self-citations (BART, rational golden-angle sampling, model-based reconstruction, subspace T1 mapping) point to standard open methods and prior independent work; they are not invoked as the proof of the framework's equivalence. The in vivo validation is limited to a single volunteer and the map agreement is reported partly qualitatively, but that is evidence-strength concern, not circularity. No equation or construction in the paper reduces the claimed result to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper contributes an engineering framework rather than a new physical law. The free parameters are limited to reconstruction regularization weights, which are not fitted and not central to the claimed consistency. The axioms are standard MRI signal models and software-fidelity assumptions. The only invented entity is the BOOST driver, which has supporting experimental evidence.

free parameters (1)
  • Reconstruction regularization weights = e.g., wavelet weight 3e-3, Sobolev weight 1, etc. (Eq. 3 and Eq. 7)
    Chosen by hand in the model-based reconstructions; not fitted to data. They affect the appearance of parameter maps but the central online/offline comparison uses identical settings for both arms, so their exact values are not critical to the claim.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Look-Locker model (Eq. 1) adequately describes single-shot inversion-recovery radial FLASH signal evolution for T1 mapping.
    Standard quantitative MRI model used in §3.3; if the actual signal deviates from this model under the sequence's spoiling/readout, the T1 estimates could be biased. Not central to online/offline consistency but underpins the example application.
  • domain assumption Signal model in Eq. 5 (monoexponential R2* decay, 6-peak fat spectrum) is valid for water/fat separation and R2*/B0 mapping.
    Standard model used in §3.4, following refs [47–49]. The accuracy of the model is not the focus of the paper; the comparison between online and offline uses the same model.
  • domain assumption The vendor-specific BOOST driver correctly interprets the event structures generated by the BART sequence library.
    The entire online acquisition path relies on this software correctness assumption; validated experimentally by the agreement with offline acquisitions, but any hidden driver bug could break the central claim.
  • domain assumption Pulseq export and the vendor-independent Pulseq interpreter preserve all relevant sequence timing and waveform fidelity after discretization and block splitting.
    The paper states events are discretized onto a raster (§2.3) and blocks split to satisfy Pulseq constraints; the authors assume this lossy conversion does not affect the physics sufficiently to alter quantitative maps. The experimental agreement supports this, but it is an assumption about the underlying fidelity.
invented entities (1)
  • BOOST (BART Online Open-Source Sequence Toolbox) independent evidence
    purpose: Vendor-specific driver sequence that executes BART-generated sequence events on a Siemens scanner with online parameter adjustment.
    Introduced as a new software component; its effectiveness is independently evidenced by the experimental validation comparing online and offline acquisitions, though it is distributed through a restricted platform.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11404 in / 9057 out tokens · 81911 ms · 2026-08-01T13:25:42.214715+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Purpose In advanced computational MRI techniques, acquisition and reconstruction techniques are jointly designed. For reproducibility, it is therefore important to provide an open implementation of both. At the same time, any use in a clinical environment usually requires a close integration with the MRI scanner. Ensuring long-time reproducibility and maintenance then poses additional challenges. In this work, we aim to provide a fully integrated open-source framework that can meet these demands. Methods A software framework to develop pulse sequences is added to the BART toolbox. In addition, a vendor-specific driver sequence is developed that can be used to run the sequence on a clinical MRI scanner enabling online adjustment of all relevant sequence parameters. Using the Pulseq format, the exact same sequence can also be reproduced offline. As proof-of-concept, quantitative MRI methods for T1 and joint water/fat R2*, B0 mapping using radial FLASH and model-based reconstruction are implemented in the proposed framework. Consistency between online and offline acquisition is validated in phantom and in vivo experiments. Results Quantitative MRI methods consisting of acquisition and reconstruction were successfully implemented in BART. Acquisition parameters and FOV can be adapted online on a clinical MRI system. Quantitative parameter maps from model-based reconstruction agree for online and offline regenerated Pulseq acquisitions. Conclusion This work enables reproducibility of advanced computational MRI methods within a comprehensive end-to-end open-source framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19099 by Daniel Mackner, Markus Huemer, Martin Uecker, Moritz Blumenthal, Philip Schaten, Viktoria Buchegger, Xiaoqing Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 2.1 Sequence Definitions The specific configuration of an MRI sequence depends on a high-level pa￾rameter set, comprising fixed system parameters as well as adjustable pa￾rameters. System parameters include the maximum gradient strength, slew rate, or raster times. Adjustable parameters include geometric informa￾tion (FOV, base resolution), the typical timing and contrast-related settings (TE/TR, flip angl… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the proposed open-source computational MRI frame￾work. It is implemented in BART with both, online integration with a driver sequence and offline generation of Pulseq files with the BART seq command. Sequences are uniquely described as a set of events, which are interpreted during the acquisition. Integration of acquisition and reconstruction into a consistent framework helps to ensure consiste… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (A) Sequence preparation workflow: opening a sequence starts loading of specific BART library, followed by a version check, memory al￾location and initialization of the UI. UI parameters are converted to the sequence configuration and reverted if the sequence is invalid. RF pulses are discretized and prepared in the vendor-specific format. When start￾ing the acquisition, information of the configuration is… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Online and offline Non-Cartesian acquisition with FOV shift. Pulseq acquisitions are affected by phase errors. After retrospective cor￾rection, only noise-like differences remain between online acquisition and Pulseq. This is also confirmed for the cardiac measurement, although larger differences remain due to motion. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison T1 mapping with a single-shot IR-FLASH sequence with continuous radial readout and subspace-based linear reconstruction of the NIST phantom acquired with Pulseq and online acquisition in the isocenter. Excellent agreement can be found across ROIs within a wide range of T1 values. Again, differences between Pulseq and online acquisitions are similar as test-retest differences of the same acquisit… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cardiac T1 mapping with ECG-triggered radial IR-FLASH ac￾quisition and linear subspace reconstruction utilizing Pulseq and online in￾tegration. After successful phase correction for the FOV-shifted Pulseq ac￾quisition, good agreement of T1 values can be achieved. Visually, this agree￾ment is confirmed by similar difference maps for test-retest experiments with differences in both, comparison of Pulseq and … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial multi-echo data acquisition (4 seconds) and model-based reconstruction for joint R⋆ 2 and B0 mapping. Good agreement between Pulseq and online acquisitions can be observed for both quantitative maps demonstrated by low differences across the whole brain. This is confirmed by similar differences between test-retest experiments of the same acquisi￾tion strategy. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MAGMA Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine , month =

    Tamir, Jonathan I and Blumenthal, Moritz and Wang, Jiachen and Oved, Tal and Shimron, Efrat and Zaiss, Moritz , title =. MAGMA Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine , month =. doi:10.1007/s10334-025-01236-4 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1007/s10334-025-01236-4

  2. [2]

    Fessler, J. A. and Sutton, B. P. , title =. IEEE Trans. Signal Processing , keywords =

  3. [3]

    , title =

    Konstandin, Simon and Günther, Matthias and Hoinkiss, Daniel C. , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.30573 , eprint =

    doi:10.1002/mrm.30573

  4. [4]

    Bernstein, M. A. and King, K. F. and Zhou, X. J. , title =

  5. [5]

    Cerqueira and Neil J

    Manuel D. Cerqueira and Neil J. Weissman and Vasken Dilsizian and Alice K. Jacobs and Sanjiv Kaul and Warren K. Laskey and Dudley J. Pennell and John A. Rumberger and Thomas Ryan and Mario S. Verani , title =. Circulation , year =. doi:10.1161/hc0402.102975 , eprint =

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    and Ponce, Irene P

    Petzschner, Frederike H. and Ponce, Irene P. and Blaimer, Martin and Jakob, Peter M. and Breuer, Felix A. , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , keywords =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.22826 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.22826

  7. [7]

    Jon , title =

    Stöcker, Tony and Vahedipour, Kaveh and Pflugfelder, Daniel and Shah, N. Jon , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.22406 , eprint =

    doi:10.1002/mrm.22406

  8. [8]

    Jochimsen and Michael

    Thies H. Jochimsen and Michael. ODIN—Object-oriented Development Interface for NMR , doi =. Journal of Magnetic Resonance , keywords =

  9. [9]

    Wang, Xiaoqing and Tan, Zhengguo and Scholand, Nick and Roeloffs, Volkert and Uecker, Martin , title =. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A. , month =. doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0196 , number =

    arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Christian M

    Scholand, Nick and Schaten, Philip and Graf, Christina and Mackner, Daniel and Holme, H. Christian M. and Blumenthal, Moritz and Mao, Andrew and Assländer, Jakob and Uecker, Martin , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , keywords =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.30247 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.30247

  11. [11]

    and Uecker, Martin and Frahm, Jens , title =

    Tan, Zhengguo and Voit, Dirk and Kollmeier, Jost M. and Uecker, Martin and Frahm, Jens , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.27795 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.27795

  12. [12]

    Scholand, Nick and Wang, Xiaoqing and Roeloffs, Volkert and Rosenzweig, Sebastian and Uecker, Martin , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.29664 , file =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.29664

  13. [13]

    Look, David C and Locker, Donald R , title =. Rev. Sci. Instrum. , owner =

  14. [14]

    Veldmann, Marten and Ehses, Philipp and Chow, Kelvin and Nielsen, Jon-Fredrik and Zaitsev, Maxim and Stöcker, Tony , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , keywords =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29384 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.29384

  15. [15]

    Wang, Xiaoqing and Roeloffs, Volkert and Klosowski, Jakob and Tan, Zhengguo and Voit, Dirk and Uecker, Martin and Frahm, Jens , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.26726 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.26726

  16. [16]

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =

    Huemer, Markus and Stilianu, Clemens and Scholand, Nick and Mackner, Daniel and Uecker, Martin and Zaiss, Moritz and Stollberger, Rudolf , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.70198 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.70198

  17. [17]

    and Hohage, T

    Uecker, M. and Hohage, T. and Block, K. T. and Frahm, J. , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , owner =

  18. [18]

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =

    Castillo-Passi, Carlos and Coronado, Ronal and Varela-Mattatall, Gabriel and Alberola-López, Carlos and Botnar, René and Irarrazaval, Pablo , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.29635 , eprint =

    doi:10.1002/mrm.29635

  19. [19]

    Huang, Chuan and Graff, Christian G and Clarkson, Eric W and Bilgin, Ali and Altbach, Maria I , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , publisher =

  20. [20]

    Sirlin , booktitle =

    Michael Simca Middleton and Gavin Hamilton and Mark Bydder and Claude B. Sirlin , booktitle =. How Much Fat Is Under the Water Peak in Liver Fat MR Spectroscopy? , pages =

  21. [21]

    Sumpf, T. J. and Uecker, M. and Boretius, S. and Frahm, J. , title =. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging , publisher =. doi:10.1002/jmri.22634 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1002/jmri.22634

  22. [22]

    and Bruno, Mary and Defazio, Aaron and Parente, Marc and Geras, Krzysztof J

    Knoll, Florian and Zbontar, Jure and Sriram, Anuroop and Muckley, Matthew J. and Bruno, Mary and Defazio, Aaron and Parente, Marc and Geras, Krzysztof J. and Katsnelson, Joe and Chandarana, Hersh and Zhang, Zizhao and Drozdzalv, Michal and Romero, Adriana and Rabbat, Michael and Vincent, Pascal and Pinkerton, James and Wang, Duo and Yakubova, Nafissa and ...

  23. [23]

    Deichmann, R and Haase, A , title =. J. Magn. Reson. , publisher =

  24. [24]

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =

    Artiges, Anais and Saimbhi, Amanpreet Singh and Castillo-Passi, Carlos and Lattanzi, Riccardo and Block, Kai Tobias , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.70067 , eprint =

    doi:10.1002/mrm.70067

  25. [25]

    and Virtue, P

    Uecker, M. and Virtue, P. and Ong, F. and Murphy, M. J. and Alley, M. T. and Vasanawala, S. S. and Lustig, M. , booktitle =

  26. [26]

    MAGMA Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine , month =

    Schuenke, Patrick and Kranich, Catarina and Lutz, Max and Schattenfroh, Jakob and Anders, Matthias and Reisdorf, Philine and Schulz-Menger, Jeanette and Sack, Ingolf and Hamilton, Jesse and Seiberlich, Nicole and Kolbitsch, Christoph , title =. MAGMA Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine , month =. doi:10.1007/s10334-025-01269-9 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1007/s10334-025-01269-9

  27. [27]

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =

    Weinmüller, Simon and Endres, Jonathan and Dang, Nam and Stollberger, Rudolf and Zaiss, Moritz , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.30318 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.30318

  28. [28]

    Open Source CEST-MRI using BART: Sequence Definition, Reconstruction and Quantification , pages =

    Markus Huemer and Daniel Mackner and Moritz Blumenthal and Sarah Warger and Philip Schaten and Clemens Stilianu and Martin Uecker and Rudolf Stollberger , booktitle =. Open Source CEST-MRI using BART: Sequence Definition, Reconstruction and Quantification , pages =

  29. [29]

    and Silva, Nuno A

    Gaspar, Andreia S. and Silva, Nuno A. and Price, Anthony N. and Ferreira, António M. and Nunes, Rita G. , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.29661 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.29661

  30. [30]

    Layton, K. J. and Kroboth, S. and Jia, F. and Littin, S. and Yu, H. and Leupold, J. and Nielsen, J.-F. and Stöcker, T. and Zaitsev, M. , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.26235 , issn =

    doi:10.1002/mrm.26235

  31. [31]

    and Silva, Nuno A

    Gaspar, Andreia S. and Silva, Nuno A. and Ferreira, António M. and Nunes, Rita G. , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.30080 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.30080

  32. [32]

    Olafsson, V. T. and Noll, D. C. and Fessler, J. A. , title =. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. , year =

  33. [33]

    and Haase, A

    Frahm, J. and Haase, A. and Matthaei, D. , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , owner =

  34. [34]

    Zhao, Bo and Lu, Wenmiao and Hitchens, T Kevin and Lam, Fan and Ho, Chien and Liang, Zhi-Pei , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , publisher =

  35. [35]

    , title =

    Nielsen, Jon-Fredrik and Noll, Douglas C. , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.26990 , eprint =

    doi:10.1002/mrm.26990

  36. [36]

    Arterial Spin Labeling MRI with Radial Sampling - End-to-End Open-Source Sequence Design and Image Reconstruction using BART , pages =

    Viktoria Buchegger and Daniel Mackner and Ingmar Sorgenfrei and Philip Schaten and Moritz Blumenthal and Ingrid Barth and Rudolf Stollberger and Martin Uecker , booktitle =. Arterial Spin Labeling MRI with Radial Sampling - End-to-End Open-Source Sequence Design and Image Reconstruction using BART , pages =

  37. [37]

    Journal of Open Source Software , publisher =

    Ravi, Keerthi Sravan and Geethanath, Sairam and Vaughan, John Thomas , title =. Journal of Open Source Software , publisher =. doi:10.21105/joss.01725 , number =

    doi:10.21105/joss.01725

  38. [38]

    and Li, Cheng and Langham, Michael C

    Magland, Jeremy F. and Li, Cheng and Langham, Michael C. and Wehrli, Felix W. , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.25640 , eprint =

    doi:10.1002/mrm.25640

  39. [39]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , keywords =

    Tan, Zhengguo and Unterberg-Buchwald, Christina and Blumenthal, Moritz and Scholand, Nick and Schaten, Philip and Holme, Christian and Wang, Xiaoqing and Raddatz, Dirk and Uecker, Martin , title =. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , keywords =. doi:10.1109/TMI.2022.3228075 , number =

    arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    and Schmidt, Manuel and Dörfler, Arnd and Scheffler, Klaus and Zaiss, Moritz , title =

    Herz, Kai and Mueller, Sebastian and Perlman, Or and Zaitsev, Maxim and Knutsson, Linda and Sun, Phillip Zhe and Zhou, Jinyuan and van Zijl, Peter and Heinecke, Kerstin and Schuenke, Patrick and Farrar, Christian T. and Schmidt, Manuel and Dörfler, Arnd and Scheffler, Klaus and Zaiss, Moritz , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1...

    doi:10.1002/mrm.28825

  41. [41]

    and Bernstein, Matt A

    Stikov, Nikola and Trzasko, Joshua D. and Bernstein, Matt A. , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , year =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27939 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.27939

  42. [42]

    Graff and Z

    C. Graff and Z. Li and A. Bilgin and M. I. Altbach and A. F. Gmitro and E. W. Clarkson , title =. Proc. Int. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. , year =

  43. [43]

    Roeloffs, Volkert and Voit, Dirk and Frahm, Jens , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.25809 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.25809

  44. [44]

    Wang, Xiaoqing and Kohler, Florian and Unterberg-Buchwald, Christina and Lotz, Joachim and Frahm, Jens and Uecker, Martin , title =. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. , publisher =

  45. [45]

    Maier, Oliver and Spann, Stefan M and B. PyQMRI:. Journal of Open Source Software , year =

  46. [46]

    Christian M

    Roeloffs, Volkert and Rosenzweig, Sebastian and Holme, H. Christian M. and Uecker, Martin and Frahm, Jens , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , publisher =

  47. [47]

    Tamir, J. I. and Uecker, M. and Chen, W. and Lai, P. and Alley, M. T. and Vasanawala, S. S. and Lustig, M. , title =. Magn. Reson. Med. , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.26102 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.26102

  48. [48]

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =

    Schaten, Philip and Blumenthal, Moritz and Rapp, Bernhard and Unterberg-Buchwald, Christina and Uecker, Martin , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.70455 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.70455

  49. [49]

    2026 , doi =

    Zimmermann, Felix Frederik and Schuenke, Patrick and Brahma, Sherine and Guastini, Mara and Hammacher, Johannes and Kofler, Andreas and Redshaw Kranich, Catarina and Lunin, Leonid and Martin, Stefan and Schote, David and Kolbitsch, Christoph , title =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  50. [50]

    arXiv , primaryclass =:2604.22713 , url =

    Tom Griesler and Jannik Stebani and Sydney Kaplan and Ivaylo Angelov and Petra Albert and Martin Blaimer and Tobias Wech and Xiang Wang and Qingping Chen and Maxim Zaitsev and Zhibo Zhu and Qi Liu and Peter Martin and Jon-Fredrik Nielsen and Jesse I Hamilton and Peter Nordbeck and Nicole Seiberlich and Maximilian Gram , title =. arXiv , primaryclass =:260...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    2026 , doi =

    Blumenthal, Moritz and Schaten, Philip and Mackner, Daniel and Bardey, Christian and Barth, Ingrid and Buchegger, Viktoria and Ehses, Philipp and Heide, Martin and Holliber, Tina and Huemer, Markus and Juschitz, Martin and Scholand, Nick and Tamir, Jon and Uhl, Daniel and Wang, Xiaoqing and Uecker, Martin , title =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  52. [52]

    Magnetic Resonance Imaging , keywords =

    Keerthi Sravan Ravi and Sneha Potdar and Pavan Poojar and Ashok Kumar Reddy and Stefan Kroboth and Jon-Fredrik Nielsen and Maxim Zaitsev and Ramesh Venkatesan and Sairam Geethanath , title =. Magnetic Resonance Imaging , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2018.03.008 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mri.2018.03.008 2018

  53. [53]

    and Herz, K

    Loktyushin, A. and Herz, K. and Dang, N. and Glang, F. and Deshmane, A. and Weinmüller, S. and Doerfler, A. and Schölkopf, B. and Scheffler, K. and Zaiss, M. , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.28727 , eprint =

    doi:10.1002/mrm.28727

  54. [54]

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =

    Blumenthal, Moritz and Fantinato, Chiara and Unterberg-Buchwald, Christina and Haltmeier, Markus and Wang, Xiaoqing and Uecker, Martin , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:10.1002/mrm.30234 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.30234

  55. [55]

    Block, K. T. and Uecker, M. and Frahm, J. , title =. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging , publisher =. doi:10.1109/tmi.2009.2023119 , issn =

    arXiv 2009

  56. [56]

    and Wehrli, F.W

    Magland, J. and Wehrli, F.W. , title =. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , keywords =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20933 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.20933