Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 58 references

Variational Multi-Task MRI Reconstruction: Joint Reconstruction, Registration and Super-Resolution

T0 review · 3 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces a variational multi-task framework that solves MRI reconstruction, motion registration, and super-resolution in one joint optimisation, and reports that the joint solution is rated best by clinicians against…

desk verdict A genuinely first three-task variational MRI model with a real existence proof, but the fidelity term reverses warp and blur, so the estimated motions aren't the physiological ones and the headline claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05911 v1 pith:PAGG4CU6 submitted 2019-08-16 eess.IV cs.NAmath.NA

Veronica Corona , Angelica I. Aviles-Rivero , Noémie Debroux , Carole Le Guyader , Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.NAmath.NA MSC 68U1092C55
keywords MRIreconstructionmotioncorrectionimageregistrationsuper-resolutionvariationaloptimisationcompressedsensinghyperelasticdeformationundersampled
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that motion-corrupted, highly undersampled MRI data are better handled by solving three tasks at once than by chaining them. It introduces a variational functional whose unknowns are a single high-resolution motion-free image $u$ and per-acquisition deformations $\varphi_t$, with an $L^2$ fidelity term that forces the deformed, blurred, downsampled version of $u$ to match each measured acquisition. Reconstruction, registration, and super-resolution then emerge from one minimisation rather than from a sequential pipeline. If the claim holds, free-breathing MRI studies could get sharper, motion-corrected, super-resolved images directly from multiple fast, undersampled scans, with expert ratings favouring the joint result over two-task and sequential baselines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint functional of Eq. (6), in which the fidelity term $\|F((Cu)\circ\varphi_t^{-1})-x_t\|_2^2$ encodes all three tasks at once: $F$ is the undersampled Fourier operator of reconstruction, $\varphi_t$ are the registration deformations, and $C=DB$ (Gaussian blur followed by averaging downsample) is the super-resolution degradation. Two regularisers carry the prior knowledge: a weighted total variation $\mathrm{TV}_{g_t}$ that aligns edges between the deformed reconstruction and each acquisition, and the hyperelastic stored energy $W_{\mathrm{Op}}(\nabla\varphi_t)=a_1\|\nabla\varphi_t\|_F^4+a_2(\det\nabla\varphi_t-1/\det\nabla\varphi_t)^4$, which allows large smooth deformations while forbidding foldings. The numerical scheme introduces auxiliary variables for the deformation gradient, the composed image, and the edge-aligned image, then solves each subproblem with dedicated tools (a total-variation projection algorithm, primal-dual updates, and closed-form Fourier updates), which is what makes the three-task problem computationally tractable.

What would settle it

Take a digital phantom with a known ground-truth high-resolution image and known motion, simulate the low-resolution acquisitions with a non-Gaussian or measured point-spread function, and run the model; if the reconstructed edges and fine structures develop ringing or false texture compared with the matched-Gaussian case, the claimed super-resolution gains depend on the assumed degradation operator rather than on true anatomy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a single variational model can couple compressed-sensing MRI reconstruction, deformable registration, and super-resolution, and that this coupling improves the result. The model minimises $$G(u,(\varphi_t)_{t=1,\dots,T}) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \left( \frac{1}{2}\|F((Cu)\circ\$varphi_t^{{-1}}$)-x_t\|$_2^{2}$ + \delta\,\mathrm{TV}_{g_t}((Cu)\circ\$varphi_t^{{-1}}$) \right) + \$\alpha$\,\mathrm{TV}(u) + \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \int_\$\Omega$ W_{\mathrm{Op}}(\nabla\varphi_t)\,dx,$$ where $C=DB$ is a known blur-then-downsample operator, $\varphi_t$ are hyperelastic deformations close to the identity, and $W_{\mathrm{Op}}$ is the hyperelastic stored energy that penalises changes in length and area while preserving topology. The authors prove existence of minimisers for this functional and solve it by introducing auxiliary variables that split the problem into five tractable subproblems. Their experiments compare the joint model against sequential reconstruction-registration-super-resolution pipelines and against two-task methods, and report that the three-task model ranks best in a clinician study while running faster than the sequential baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes it knows exactly the blur-and-downsample operator $C=DB$ (Gaussian blur plus averaging window) that turns the high-resolution image into each low-resolution acquisition; if the real scanner's point-spread function or slice profile differs, the fidelity term is biased and the super-resolved detail could be an artifact of that wrong assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single high-resolution, motion-corrected image can be recovered directly from multiple undersampled free-breathing acquisitions, removing the need to reconstruct first and register afterwards.
  • Joint estimation reduces error propagation: details that a sequential pipeline blurs away, such as small vessels and kidney structures, survive even at acceleration factor 8 in the reported experiments.
  • The framework is plug-and-play with respect to the regulariser, so the TV terms could be replaced by learned or application-specific priors without changing the joint fidelity structure.
  • Because all three tasks share one fidelity term, the computational cost stays comparable to a two-task method (DC-CS) while delivering a third task, and is far below the sequential baselines.
  • The existence result gives the model a guarantee that the optimisation problem is well-posed under the stated boundedness and regularity assumptions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper assumes a known degradation operator, a natural stress test would replace the Gaussian blur with a measured point-spread function; if the fine-detail gains persist, true super-resolution is occurring, whereas if they vanish or produce ringing, the model is partly fitting its own assumption.
  • A blind variant that estimates $C$ alongside $u$ and $\varphi_t$ would remove the need to know the exact slice profile and could be tested on the same datasets.
  • The expert study does not isolate the super-resolution task; a simulated ground-truth ablation would quantify how much of the quality gain comes from each of the three tasks.
  • The same three-way fidelity structure could transfer to PET or ultrasound, where undersampling, motion, and limited resolution occur together.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a variational multi-task framework that jointly performs MRI reconstruction, registration, and super-resolution from a stack of undersampled, motion-corrupted acquisitions. The model combines an L2 fidelity term linking the three tasks, a weighted total variation term, a standard TV regularizer on the high-resolution image, and an Ogden-type hyperelastic regularizer on the deformation fields. The authors prove existence of minimizers, derive a splitting-based numerical scheme with five sub-problems, and evaluate the method on five free-breathing MRI datasets against sequential pipelines (rigid and hyperelastic registration followed by TV reconstruction and super-resolution) and two-task baselines (DC-CS and GW-CS), using an expert user study and CPU-time comparisons.

Significance. If the model and experiments were sound, this would be a valuable contribution: it is, to the authors' knowledge, the first variational framework to combine three MRI tasks in a single optimization, and the theoretical well-posedness result plus the computationally tractable splitting scheme would be useful to the community. The hyperelastic regularization is physically motivated, and the idea of sharing representation across reconstruction, registration, and super-resolution is attractive. However, the significance is conditional: the fidelity term appears to reverse the physical order of degradation and deformation, and the experimental reporting contains an inconsistency between the narrative and the displayed user-study percentages. These issues directly affect the central claims of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B/III-C/III-D] The acquisition model in Eq. (3) is warp-then-degrade (DB W_i u), while the fidelity term in Eqs. (5)–(6) is degrade-then-warp, ((Cu)∘φ_t^{-1}) with C=DB. For nonrigid deformations, C and composition by φ_t^{-1} do not commute, so the functional minimized in Eq. (6) is not the likelihood of the measured data under the stated physical model. Sub-problem 5 confirms the reversed order, since it solves min_u (γ2/2T) Σ_t ||h_t∘φ_t - Cu||^2. Consequently, the recovered deformations φ_t are not the tissue motions that generated the acquisitions, and the claimed super-resolved, motion-free reconstruction may be an artifact of the assumed blur/downsampling model. The existence proof in the supplement establishes well-posedness of the problem as written, but not its correctness as an inverse problem.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Section IV.D] The user-study results as presented do not support the claim that 'our approach was ranked best, with a 44.29% of agreement'. In Fig. 3, the bar for OURS in the sequential comparison is 5.89% and in the multi-task comparison is 23.38%, both the lowest in their groups, while the corresponding highest bars are 52.52% (RIGID) and 44.29% (DC-CS). The text attributes the 44.29% to OURS and to the sequential comparison, which is inconsistent with the figure. This discrepancy must be resolved; either the figure or the narrative is mislabeled, and the Friedman test should be reported with test statistics, p-values, and effect sizes before the claim of significant improvements can be assessed.
  3. [Section IV-B and Fig. 8] The evaluation protocol provides no ground-truth quantitative metrics for the recovered super-resolved anatomy or the deformation fields. The difference maps in Fig. 8 measure agreement between the reconstruction and the model's own registered copies h_t∘φ_t, so they cannot independently validate motion correction. The expert study uses a coarse three-point Likert scale without any inter-observer agreement statistic, and the supplement does not state whether the experts were blinded to which method produced each image. Given the model-order concern in the first comment, the current evaluation cannot substantiate that the proposed method recovers physically correct deformations or a true super-resolved anatomy.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Section IV.B] The phrase 'we expensively evaluate our model' should read 'we extensively evaluate our model'.
  2. [Section III.B] The word 'dowsampling' should be 'downsampling'.
  3. [Section IV.D] The word 'staircaising' should be 'staircasing'.
  4. [Fig. 7 and Supplement Fig. 17] The caption of Fig. 7 says 'Dataset 5' while the figure and the surrounding text refer to Dataset 3; the supplement's Fig. 17 caption similarly says 'Dataset 4' for what the text describes as Dataset 5.
  5. [Section III.C] The phrase 'The first term of F seeks to align the edges' should likely be 'The first term of E seeks to align the edges', since E is the functional being defined.
  6. [Throughout] The symbol F is used both for the undersampled Fourier operator and for the deformation gradient in the stored energy function W_O(F); this notational clash may confuse readers.
  7. [Sub-problem 3] The formula for h^{k+1}_t contains unbalanced parentheses, making the update rule hard to parse.
  8. [Supplement Section III] The user-study section should state whether the experts were blinded to the reconstruction method and should report the instructions given to the experts in full.
  9. [Section IV.A] The data description does not specify the acceleration factors or k-space sampling pattern used in the experiments; this should be clarified to allow reproduction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Minor circular-evidence detail in the difference-map validation; the central variational derivation and external benchmarks are independent.

  1. other [Section IV-D, paragraph on difference maps (after Fig. 8); model Eq. (7) and Table I]
    "when we inspect the mean difference between our reconstruction and the individual registered acquisitions ( ht◦φt), at the middle and right sides of Fig. 8, one can see that the structures are very well-aligned resulting in a much smaller range in difference maps. Overall, our approach successfully corrects for motion even at low undersampling rates"

    The evidence for 'successfully corrects for motion' is the small difference between ht◦φt and Cu, which is not an independent measurement: Eq. (7) contains the penalty (γ2/2)||ht−(Cu)◦φ_t^{-1}||^2, and Table I sets γ2=10^5, so the optimization forces ht≈(Cu)◦φ_t^{-1} and hence ht◦φt≈Cu by construction. Reporting this enforced residual as validation of motion correction is a self-consistency check rather than a test of the estimated deformations. The paper's main comparisons against DC-CS, GW-CS, RIGID and HYPER, plus the expert user study, are external to the optimized objective, so this is a minor circular-evidence step, not a collapse of the central derivation.

full rationale

Overall, the proposed method is a new variational model, not a quantity fitted from data and then renamed as a prediction. The derivation chain is self-contained: Eq. (6) defines the joint objective over u and φt, the existence of minimizers is proved in the supplement, and the numerical scheme is a standard splitting with the update equations given. The performance claim is supported by comparisons with external baselines (DC-CS, GW-CS, RIGID, HYPER) and by an expert scoring study; the paper explicitly notes 'there is not ground truth for this task,' which is a limitation of the evaluation rather than a circularity. The only self-citation, [44] for the Ogden-type hyperelastic energy, is a transparent modeling choice and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem; the current paper verifies the coercivity and lower-semicontinuity properties needed for well-posedness. Also, the inconsistency between the warp-then-degrade order in Eq. (3) and the degrade-then-warp order in Eq. (6) is a physical-modeling correctness concern, not a circularity, because the objective is not equivalent to its own input by definition. The single minor circular-evidence item is the difference-map discussion, where small residuals are enforced by the γ2 penalty; since the central comparative claims do not depend on that discussion, the circularity is not load-bearing. Score 1 reflects that one minor self-consistent validation step while the central derivation remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical entities. It combines existing mathematical components (TV, hyperelastic registration, super-resolution degradation model) with hand-tuned free parameters. The model relies on a fixed Gaussian blur model for super-resolution and on a diffeomorphic hyperelastic deformation model, both of which are assumptions about the imaging physics. The unspecified parameter δ is a reproducibility gap.

free parameters (11)
  • a1 = 1 (all datasets)
    Hyperelastic regularization weight for deformation smoothness; hand-set in Table I.
  • a2 = 50 (D1-D3), 100 (D4-D5)
    Hyperelastic regularization weight penalizing area change; hand-set in Table I.
  • gamma1 = 5 (D1-D3), 1 (D4-D5)
    Penalty weight enforcing z_t close to ∇φ_t; hand-set in Table I.
  • gamma2 = 1e5 (all datasets)
    Penalty weight enforcing h_t close to (Cu)∘φ_t^{-1}; large value ensures tightness; hand-set.
  • gamma3 = 15 (D1-D3), 1 (D4-D5)
    Weight on the fidelity term F h_t vs x_t; hand-set in Table I.
  • theta = 5 (all datasets)
    Penalty parameter for similarity between f_t and h_t; hand-set.
  • sigma = 1.5 (D1-D3), 2 (D4-D5)
    Gaussian filter variance in the Canny edge detector used to build weights g_t; hand-set.
  • k = 2 (all datasets)
    Parameter of the Canny edge detector (likely kernel size); hand-set in Table I.
  • alpha = 0.01 (D1-D3), 0.001 (D4-D5)
    TV regularization weight for the high-resolution image u; hand-set.
  • delta = not reported
    Weight of the weighted TV term TV_{gt} in Eq. (6). The model includes δ but Table I omits it, leaving the model incompletely specified.
  • N, n (iteration counts) = 500 (all datasets)
    Number of iterations for the outer and inner optimization loops; fixed in Table I.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The MRI data model x = F u + η with F = S A, where S is subsampling and A is the Fourier transform, accurately represents the acquisition.
    Section III-A, Eq. (1). The reconstruction task and fidelity terms rely on this forward model.
  • domain assumption The blurring operator B in C = DB is a fixed Gaussian kernel and D is an averaging downsampling window.
    Section III-B. This defines the super-resolution forward model; if inaccurate, super-resolution is biased.
  • domain assumption Deformations φ_t are diffeomorphisms in W = Id + W^{1,4}_0(Ω,R^2) with det∇φ_t > 0 a.e., and biological tissue is modeled as an Ogden-type hyperelastic material with stored energy WOp.
    Sections III-B and III-C, Eq. (4). The registration regularizer and the constraint set U depend on this model of motion.
  • standard math Existence of minimizers for (6) follows from standard calculus of variations arguments (coercivity, weak lower semi-continuity, Ball's results).
    Theorem III.1 and supplementary Section V. The proof relies on standard BV/W^{1,4} theory.
  • domain assumption The weighted total variation TV_{gt} is well-defined with weights g_t from a Canny edge detector satisfying the assumptions in [51].
    Section III-C and supplementary Definition 1. The weights are computed from data, assuming the Canny edges align with the true image edges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational Multi-Task MRI Reconstruction: Joint Reconstruction, Registration and Super-Resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PAGG4CU6

@misc{pith2026190805911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational Multi-Task MRI Reconstruction: Joint Reconstruction, Registration and Super-Resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PAGG4CU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05911}
}
abstract

Motion degradation is a central problem in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). This work addresses the problem of how to obtain higher quality, super-resolved motion-free, reconstructions from highly undersampled MRI data. In this work, we present for the first time a variational multi-task framework that allows joining three relevant tasks in MRI: reconstruction, registration and super-resolution. Our framework takes a set of multiple undersampled MR acquisitions corrupted by motion into a novel multi-task optimisation model, which is composed of an $L^2$ fidelity term that allows sharing representation between tasks, super-resolution foundations and hyperelastic deformations to model biological tissue behaviors. We demonstrate that this combination yields to significant improvements over sequential models and other bi-task methods. Our results exhibit fine details and compensate for motion producing sharp and highly textured images compared to state of the art methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05911 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed variational multi-task framework. A set of higly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Computational performance comparison between sequential (three tasks), joint (two tasks) and our approach. Elapsed time in seconds. The sequential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. User study results (in %) indicating the level of agreement of clinicians [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstruction results for Dataset 3 compared to sequential approaches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reconstruction results for Dataset 1 for different acceleration factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Difference maps. From left to right: average difference maps of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plots displays the percentage of responses supporting the worst ranked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Computational performance comparison between sequential (three tasks), joint (two tasks) and our approach. Elapsed time in seconds. The sequential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Estimated motion and determinant maps of the deformation Jacobian. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Reconstruction results for Dataset 4 compared to sequential ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Reconstruction results for Dataset 5 compared to sequential ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Reconstruction results for Dataset 4 for different acceleration factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. A. Brown, R. C. Semelka, and B. M. Dale, MRI: basic principles and applications . John Wiley & Sons, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Motion artifacts in MRI: a complex problem with many partial solutions,

    M. Zaitsev, J. Maclaren, and M. Herbst, “Motion artifacts in MRI: a complex problem with many partial solutions,” J Magn Reson Imaging, , vol. 42, no. 4, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    The diminishing variance algorithm for real-time reduction of motion artifacts in MRI,

    T. S. Sachs, C. H. Meyer, P. Irarrazabal, B. S. Hu, D. G. Nishimura, and A. Macovski, “The diminishing variance algorithm for real-time reduction of motion artifacts in MRI,” Magn Reson Med , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 412–422, 1995

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Are movement artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging a real problem? A narrative review,

    I. Havsteen, A. Ohlhues, K. H. Madsen, J. D. Nybing, H. Christensen, and A. Christensen, “Are movement artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging a real problem? A narrative review,” Frontiers in neurology , vol. 8, p. 232, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Toward quantifying the prevalence, severity, and cost associated with patient motion during clinical mr examinations,

    J. B. Andre, B. W. Bresnahan, M. Mossa-Basha, M. N. Hoff, C. P. Smith, Y . Anzai, and W. A. Cohen, “Toward quantifying the prevalence, severity, and cost associated with patient motion during clinical mr examinations,” Journal of the American College of Radiology , vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 689–695, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Experimental designs and processing strategies for fmri studies involving overt verbal responses,

    R. M. Birn, R. W. Cox, and P. A. Bandettini, “Experimental designs and processing strategies for fmri studies involving overt verbal responses,” Neuroimage, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1046–1058, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Quantification of left ventricular function with magnetic resonance images acquired in real time,

    R. M. Setser, S. E. Fischer, and C. H. Lorenz, “Quantification of left ventricular function with magnetic resonance images acquired in real time,” J Magn Reson Imaging , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 430–438, 2000. 10

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Plein, W

    S. Plein, W. H. Smith, J. P. Ridgway, A. Kassner, D. J. Beacock, T. N. Bloomer, and M. U. Sivananthan, “Qualitative and quantitative analysis of regional left ventricular wall dynamics using real-time magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with conventional breath-hold gradient echo acquisition in volunteers and patients,” J Magn Reson Imaging

    work page

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Rapid evaluation of left ventricular volume and mass without breath-holding using real-time interactive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging system,

    S. Kaji, P. C. Yang, A. B. Kerr, W. W. Tang, C. H. Meyer, A. Macovski, J. M. Pauly, D. G. Nishimura, and B. S. Hu, “Rapid evaluation of left ventricular volume and mass without breath-holding using real-time interactive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging system,” Journal of th...

    2001

  2. [10]

    Audio-visual biofeedback for respiratory-gated radiotherapy: Impact of audio instruction and audio-visual biofeedback on respiratory- gated radiotherapy,

    “Audio-visual biofeedback for respiratory-gated radiotherapy: Impact of audio instruction and audio-visual biofeedback on respiratory- gated radiotherapy,” International Journal of Radiation Oncol- ogy*Biology*Physics, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 924 – 933, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Technical aspects of image-guided respiration-gated radiation therapy,

    “Technical aspects of image-guided respiration-gated radiation therapy,” Medical Dosimetry , vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 141 – 151, 2006

    2006

  4. [12]

    Motion adaptive x-ray therapy: a feasibility study,

    P. J. Keall, V . R. Kini, S. S. Vedam, and R. Mohan, “Motion adaptive x-ray therapy: a feasibility study,” Physics in Medicine and Biology , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 1–10, nov 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    Prediction of lung tumour position based on spirometry and on ab- dominal displacement: Accuracy and reproducibility,

    “Prediction of lung tumour position based on spirometry and on ab- dominal displacement: Accuracy and reproducibility,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 339 – 346, 2006

    2006

  6. [14]

    Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging,

    M. Lustig, D. Donoho, and J. M. Pauly, “Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging,” Magn Reson Med , pp. 1182–1195, 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    Spatiotemporal imagingwith partially separable functions,

    Z.-P. Liang, “Spatiotemporal imagingwith partially separable functions,” in IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, 2007, pp. 988–991

    2007

  8. [16]

    Accelerated dynamic mri exploiting sparsity and low-rank structure: kt slr,

    S. G. Lingala, Y . Hu, E. DiBella, and M. Jacob, “Accelerated dynamic mri exploiting sparsity and low-rank structure: kt slr,” IEEE Trans Med Imaging, pp. 1042–1054, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Accelerated dynamic mri exploiting sparsity and low-rank struc- ture: kt slr,

    ——, “Accelerated dynamic mri exploiting sparsity and low-rank struc- ture: kt slr,” IEEE Trans Med Imaging , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1042–1054, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Low-rank plus sparse matrix decomposition for accelerated dynamic mri with separation of background and dynamic components,

    R. Otazo, E. Cand `es, and D. K. Sodickson, “Low-rank plus sparse matrix decomposition for accelerated dynamic mri with separation of background and dynamic components,” Magn Reson Med , pp. 1125– 1136, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Accelerating parameter mapping with a locally low rank constraint,

    T. Zhang, J. M. Pauly, and I. R. Levesque, “Accelerating parameter mapping with a locally low rank constraint,” Magn Reson Med , vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 655–661, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Deformation corrected compressed sensing (dc-cs): A novel framework for accelerated dynamic mri,

    S. G. Lingala, E. DiBella, and M. Jacob, “Deformation corrected compressed sensing (dc-cs): A novel framework for accelerated dynamic mri,” IEEE Trans Med Imaging , vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 72–85, Jan 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Nonrigid groupwise registration for motion estimation and compensation in compressed sensing reconstruction of breath-hold cardiac cine mri,

    J. Royuela-del Val, L. Cordero-Grande, F. Simmross-Wattenberg, M. Mart ´ın-Fern´andez, and C. Alberola-L ´opez, “Nonrigid groupwise registration for motion estimation and compensation in compressed sensing reconstruction of breath-hold cardiac cine mri,” Magn Reson Med, vol. 7...

    2016

  14. [22]

    Compressed sensing plus motion (CS+M): A new perspective for improving undersampled MR image reconstruction,

    A. I. Aviles-Rivero, G. Williams, M. J. Graves, and C.-B. Sch ¨onlieb, “Compressed sensing plus motion (CS+M): A new perspective for improving undersampled MR image reconstruction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.10828, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Joint reconstruction of multiple images and motion in MRI: Application to free-breathing myocardial T2 quantification,

    F. Odille, A. Menini, J.-M. Escany ´e, P.-A. Vuissoz, P.-Y . Marie, M. Beaumont, and J. Felblinger, “Joint reconstruction of multiple images and motion in MRI: Application to free-breathing myocardial T2 quantification,” IEEE Trans Med Imaging , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 197– 207, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Joint reconstruction of image and motion in gated positron emission tomography,

    M. Blume, A. Martinez-Moller, A. Keil, N. Navab, and M. Rafecas, “Joint reconstruction of image and motion in gated positron emission tomography,”IEEE Trans Med Imaging , vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1892–1906, 2010

    1906

  17. [25]

    Joint estimation of image and deformation parameters in motion-corrected PET,

    M. Jacobson and J. Fessler, “Joint estimation of image and deformation parameters in motion-corrected PET,” in IEEE NSS Conf , vol. 5, 2003, pp. 3290–3294

    2003

  18. [26]

    Fast method for correcting image misregistration due to organ motion in time-series MRI data,

    S. N. Gupta, M. Solaiyappan, G. M. Beache, A. E. Arai, and T. K. Foo, “Fast method for correcting image misregistration due to organ motion in time-series MRI data,” Magn Reson Med , vol. 49, no. 3

  19. [27]

    Model-based regis- tration for dynamic cardiac perfusion MRI,

    G. Adluru, E. V . DiBella, and M. C. Schabel, “Model-based regis- tration for dynamic cardiac perfusion MRI,” J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(5):1062-70

    2006

  20. [28]

    First-pass myocardial perfusion image registration by maximization of normalized mutual information,

    K. K. Wong, E. S. Yang, E. X. Wu, H.-F. Tse, and S. T. Wong, “First-pass myocardial perfusion image registration by maximization of normalized mutual information,” JMRI, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 529–537, 2008

    2008

  21. [29]

    Rigid-body motion correction of the liver in image reconstruction for golden-angle stack-of-stars DCE MRI,

    A. Johansson, J. Balter, and Y . Cao, “Rigid-body motion correction of the liver in image reconstruction for golden-angle stack-of-stars DCE MRI,” Magn Reson Med , vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 1345–1353, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Motion corrected free-breathing delayed-enhancement imaging of myocardial infarction using nonrigid registration

    H. L. A. A. M. E. Ledesma-Carbayo MJ, Kellman P, “Motion corrected free-breathing delayed-enhancement imaging of myocardial infarction using nonrigid registration.” J Magn Reson Imaging , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 184–90., Jul. 2007

    2007

  23. [31]

    Motion corrected free-breathing delayed-enhancement imaging of my- ocardial infarction using nonrigid registration,

    M. J. Ledesma-Carbayo, P. Kellman, A. E. Arai, and E. R. McVeigh, “Motion corrected free-breathing delayed-enhancement imaging of my- ocardial infarction using nonrigid registration,” J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(1):184-90, 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Expiration-phase template- based motion correction of free-breathing abdominal dynamic contrast enhanced MRI,

    Z. Li, J. A. Tielbeek, M. W. Caan, C. A. Puylaert, M. L. Ziech, C. Y . Nio, J. Stoker, L. J. van Vliet, and F. M. V os, “Expiration-phase template- based motion correction of free-breathing abdominal dynamic contrast enhanced MRI,” IEEE TBE , vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1215–1225, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Evaluation of motion correction for clinical dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the liver,

    M. Jansen, H. Kuijf, W. Veldhuis, F. Wessels, M. Van Leeuwen, and J. Pluim, “Evaluation of motion correction for clinical dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the liver,” Physics in Medicine & Biology , vol. 62, no. 19, p. 7556, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    A variational model for joint motion estimation and image reconstruction,

    M. Burger, H. Dirks, and C.-B. Sch ¨onlieb, “A variational model for joint motion estimation and image reconstruction,” SIAM J. Imaging Sciences, 11, 1, pp. 94-128 , 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Estimation of images and nonrigid deformations in gated emission CT,

    B. A. Mair, D. R. Gilland, and J. Sun, “Estimation of images and nonrigid deformations in gated emission CT,” IEEE Trans Med Imaging, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1130–1144, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Combined reconstruc- tion and motion correction in SPECT imaging,

    H. Schumacher, J. Modersitzki, and B. Fischer, “Combined reconstruc- tion and motion correction in SPECT imaging,” ITNS 56, (1)

  29. [37]

    Joint image reconstruction and nonrigid motion estimation with a simple penalty that encourages local invertibility,

    S. Chun and J. Fessler, “Joint image reconstruction and nonrigid motion estimation with a simple penalty that encourages local invertibility,”Proc SPIE, vol. 7258

  30. [38]

    Optimization transfer approach to joint registra- tion/reconstruction for motion-compensated image reconstruction,

    J. A. Fessler, “Optimization transfer approach to joint registra- tion/reconstruction for motion-compensated image reconstruction,” ISBI, 2010

    2010

  31. [39]

    Quicksilver: Fast predictive image registration–a deep learning approach,

    X. Yang, R. Kwitt, M. Styner, and M. Niethammer, “Quicksilver: Fast predictive image registration–a deep learning approach,” NeuroImage, vol. 158, pp. 378–396, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    End-to-end unsupervised deformable image registration with a convolutional neural network,

    B. D. de V os, F. F. Berendsen, M. A. Viergever, M. Staring, and I. Iˇsgum, “End-to-end unsupervised deformable image registration with a convolutional neural network,” in DLMIA, 2017, pp. 204–212

    2017

  33. [41]

    Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms

    L. I. Rudin, S. Osher, and E. Fatemi, “Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms.” Physica D, vol. 60, pp. 259-268 , 1992

    1992

  34. [42]

    Exploiting rank deficiency and transform domain sparsity for mr image reconstruction,

    A. Majumdar and R. K. Ward, “Exploiting rank deficiency and transform domain sparsity for mr image reconstruction,” Magn Reson Imaging, pp. 9–18, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Global invertibility of sobolev functions and the interpen- etration of matter,

    J. M. Ball, “Global invertibility of sobolev functions and the interpen- etration of matter,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Section A Mathematics , vol. 88, no. 3-4, p. 315328, 1981

    1981

  36. [44]

    Multi-tasking to correct: motion- compensated MRI via joint reconstruction and registration,

    V . Corona, A. Aviles-Rivero, N. Debroux, M.Grave, C. L. Guyader, C.-B. Schoenlieb, and G. Williams, “Multi-tasking to correct: motion- compensated MRI via joint reconstruction and registration,” Scale Space and V ariational Methods in Computer Vision LNCS conference proceed- ...

    2019

  37. [45]

    An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications,

    A. Chambolle, “An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications,” J Math Imaging Vis , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 89–97, 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging,

    A. Chambolle and T. Pock, “A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging,” J Math Imaging Vis 40: 120

  39. [47]

    Deformable tem- plates using large deformation kinematics,

    G. E. Christensen, R. D. Rabbitt, and M. I. Miller, “Deformable tem- plates using large deformation kinematics,” IEEE Trans Image Process , vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 1435–1447, Oct 1996

    1996

  40. [48]

    Autoadaptive motion modelling for MR-based respiratory motion estimation,

    C. F. Baumgartner, C. Kolbitsch, J. R. McClelland, D. Rueckert, and A. P. King, “Autoadaptive motion modelling for MR-based respiratory motion estimation,” Med Image Anal , vol. 35, pp. 83 – 100, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    4D MR imaging of respiratory organ motion and its variability,

    M. von Siebenthal, G. Szekely, U. Gamper, P. Boesiger, A. Lomax, and P. Cattin, “4D MR imaging of respiratory organ motion and its variability,” Physics in Medicine & Biology , vol. 52, 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    Modersitzki, F AIR: Flexible Algorithms for Image Registration

    J. Modersitzki, F AIR: Flexible Algorithms for Image Registration . Philadelphia: SIAM, 2009

    2009

  43. [51]

    Weighted BV functions,

    A. Baldi, “Weighted BV functions,” Houston J. Math. , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 683–705, 2001

    2001

  44. [52]

    Dacorogna, Direct Methods in the Calculus of Variations, Second Edition

    B. Dacorogna, Direct Methods in the Calculus of Variations, Second Edition. Springer, 2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    Global invertibility of Sobolev functions and the interpenetration of matter,

    “Global invertibility of Sobolev functions and the interpenetration of matter,” vol. 88

  46. [54]

    Brezis, Analyse fonctionelle: , ser

    H. Brezis, Analyse fonctionelle: , ser. Collection Math ´ematiques ap- pliqu´ees pour la ma ˆıtrise, 1983

    1983

  47. [55]

    Demengel, G

    F. Demengel, G. Demengel, and R. Ern ´e, Functional Spaces for the Theory of Elliptic Partial Differential Equations , ser. Universitext. Springer London, 2012. 11 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FOR THE ARTICLE : Variational Multi-Task MRI Reconstruction: JointReconstruction, Registrat...

    2012

  48. [56]

    As φt,n ⇀ n→+∞ ¯φt in W 1,4(Ω)⊂ c Lp(Ω, R2), there existsK∈ N∗ such that for anyn≥K,‖φt,n− ¯φt‖Lp(Ω,R2)≤ ε 3Lε

    We now have : ‖αt◦φt,n−αt◦ ¯φt‖Lp(Ω)≤‖αt◦φt,n−ξN t ◦φt,n‖Lp(Ω) +‖ξN t ◦φt,n−ξN t ◦ ¯φt‖Lp(Ω) +‖ξN t ◦ ¯φt−αt◦ ¯φt‖Lp(Ω), ≤ ( ∫ Ω |αt−ξN t |p 1 |det∇φt,n(φ−1 t,n(y))|dy) 1 p +Lε‖φt,n− ¯φt‖Lp(Ω,R2) + ( ∫ Ω |ξN t −αt|p 1 |det∇¯φt(¯φ−1 t (y))|dy) 1 p, with Lε the Lipschitz constan...

  49. [57]

    But we also know that ‖C˜un‖Lp(Ω) = 1 |Ω′|| ∫ Ω′undx|‖C1‖Lp(Ω) ≤ 2 √ c2 2 +c2

  50. [58]

    We therefore have ‖un‖L1(Ω′)≤‖u0,n + 1 |Ω′|| ∫ Ω′ undx|‖L1(Ω′), ≤‖u0,n‖L1(Ω′) +| ∫ Ω′ undx|, ≤c1ν +c4|Ω′|< +∞

    Since C1 ⁄= 0 , we have 1 |Ω′|| ∫ Ω′undx| ≤ 2 √ c2 2+c2 3 ‖C1‖Lp(Ω) =c4 < +∞. We therefore have ‖un‖L1(Ω′)≤‖u0,n + 1 |Ω′|| ∫ Ω′ undx|‖L1(Ω′), ≤‖u0,n‖L1(Ω′) +| ∫ Ω′ undx|, ≤c1ν +c4|Ω′|< +∞. 17 Thus un is uniformly bounded according to n in BV (Ω′) and there exists a subsequence...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.