notarandomer

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by notarandomer 5y ago

   Thanks for the comment! You're right, I was oversimplifying saying that default MRI would be fully sampled. My main point still stands, you can't just chuck ML onto current protocols to do a direct comparison with ML and more conv
2. 2.▲
   by notarandomer 5y ago

   "Default MRI" (i.e. fully sampled) should definitely be acquired when possible when testing this out to compare to gold standard. But the benefit of using ML methods in the fully sampled case would be minimal (maybe some denoising
3. 3.▲
   by notarandomer 5y ago

   Thanks! I agree taht generative models on their own are definitely more risky than methods that combine ML for regularization along with data consistency terms that force the reconstructions to be consistent with the acquired data.
4. 4.▲
   by notarandomer 5y ago

   Yes, accelerating MRI acquisition increases noise in the images as well as introducing aliasing artifacts. I think the issue is that some modern reconstruction methods (e.g. compressed sensing that was mentioned in the article) produce pred
5. 5.▲
   by notarandomer 5y ago

   I am surprised you are so certain in this statement. There is always a tradeoff between scan time and image quality. Clinical scans often have thick slices to keep scan times reasonable. Using advanced reconstruction methods, e.g. ML, you c