Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Physics-Informed Joint Multi-TE Super-Resolution with Implicit Neural Representation for Robust Fetal T2 Mapping

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A decay-aware neural reconstruction can map fetal T2 from fewer motion-corrupted stacks per echo.

desk verdict Strong sparse-input result in adult ablation, but T2 accuracy claim is not independent of the monoexponential prior. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10680 v1 pith:M36ZKALU submitted 2025-08-14 cs.CV

Busra Bulut , Maik Dannecker , Thomas Sanchez , Sara Neves Silva , Vladyslav Zalevskyi , Steven Jia , Jean-Baptiste Ledoux , Guillaume Auzias
show 4 more authors
François Rousseau Jana Hutter Daniel Rueckert Meritxell Bach Cuadra
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords fetalbrainMRIT2mappingimplicitneuralrepresentationslice-to-volumereconstructionmulti-echosuper-resolutionlow-field0.55Tphysics-informedregularizationmotionrobustness
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

This paper tries to establish that fetal brain T2 maps can be computed from fewer, motion-corrupted MRI stacks than the current standard of three per echo time, by reconstructing all echo times jointly instead of separately. The key move is to add a physics-informed regularizer that enforces the known monoexponential T2 decay law on the outputs of an implicit neural representation, so information flows across echo times while quantitative values stay trustworthy. If the claim holds, T2 mapping of the developing fetal brain becomes shorter, more motion-robust, and feasible at low field strength (0.55T), where T2 contrast is favorable. The authors report evidence from simulated fetal data, adult data with fetal-like motion, and the first in-vivo fetal T2 maps at 0.55T, including cases with one or two stacks per echo.

What carries the argument

The central object is the MCReg network: an implicit neural representation (a periodic-activation multilayer perceptron) that takes a 3D coordinate and outputs intensities for all echo times simultaneously, combined with a physics regularizer $R_{T2} = \frac{1}{|X|}\sum_x \|A y(x)\|_2^2$ where $A = D(D^\top D)^{-1}D^\top - I$ is the residual projection for the log-linear monoexponential decay model $y=D\beta$. This regularizer is what lets information from all TEs be shared without washing out the quantitative T2 signal; it is voxel-wise, parameter-free, and precomputable because $D$ depends only on the known echo times.

What would settle it

Simulate a phantom or numerical fetal brain where each voxel is a mixture of two T2 compartments (e.g., 80% T2=300 ms and 20% T2=600 ms) and acquire or simulate motion-corrupted stacks with one stack per TE. If MCReg's T2 estimates deviate from the known monoexponential-equivalent value by an amount that grows with the minority compartment fraction, and if the deviation persists at higher noise, the single-exponential regularizer is the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that a single implicit neural representation with multiple output channels can reconstruct all echo-time volumes at once, and that adding a voxel-wise residual penalty for deviations from single-exponential T2 decay — $r_{T2}(y) = \|A y\|_2^2$ with $A = D(D^\top D)^{-1}D^\top - I$ — makes the joint reconstruction both structurally consistent across echoes and quantitatively faithful for T2 mapping. The regularizer is built from the decay equation $V_{TE}(x)=M_0(x)\exp(-TE/T_2(x))$, linearized in log-intensity as $y=D\beta$, so that enforcing the residual to zero means the reconstructed volumes obey the physics. As a result, the method tolerates severely und

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each voxel follows a single monoexponential T2 decay with consistent noise across echoes; if real fetal tissue contains mixed T2 components or echo-dependent noise, the physics prior can bias reconstructed intensities and the resulting T2 maps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fewer than the standard three stacks per echo time can suffice for accurate T2 mapping, with the physics-informed joint reconstruction remaining usable at one stack per echo where single-contrast and multi-contrast baselines fail.
  • Joint multi-echo reconstruction enforces anatomical consistency across echo times, reducing artifacts from severe motion and signal dropouts in high-TE stacks.
  • T2 mapping becomes practical at 0.55T with 0.8 mm isotropic resolution, giving the first reported in-vivo fetal T2 maps at this field strength.
  • The same total acquisition can be redistributed: instead of three stacks per TE, more stacks can be spent per echo or on views where motion is worse, without extra scan time.
  • Because the regularizer uses only known echo times and log-linear least squares, it adds no learned parameters and works for arbitrary TE values, supporting self-supervised out-of-domain use.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same log-linear regularization trick should transfer to other quantitative MRI contrasts governed by a known monoexponential or otherwise parameterized signal model, such as T2* or diffusion-weighted decay, where joint multi-echo reconstruction could likewise cut acquisition time.
  • Editorial extension: an adaptive or learned weighting $\alpha$ could remove the main practical tuning knob; the paper sets $\alpha$ empirically and reports that sparse inputs need larger $\alpha$.
  • Editorial extension: a head-to-head test against the non-physics multi-contrast baseline on out-of-distribution echo times would reveal whether the decay prior genuinely extrapolates or merely interpolates the given TEs.
  • Editorial extension: the robustness claim suggests clinical utility in motion-prone populations, but needs confirmation on a larger fetal cohort with reference T2 maps; the paper's fetal experiment is qualitative only.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MCReg, a physics-informed implicit neural representation (INR) framework for joint multi-TE super-resolution reconstruction of fetal brain MRI, with the goal of enabling quantitative T2 mapping from sparse, motion-corrupted stacks. The method extends the SIREN-based SSVR architecture with a shared multi-contrast INR that predicts all TE volumes simultaneously, and adds a voxel-wise regularization term RT2 that enforces monoexponential T2 decay across TEs. The authors evaluate three INR variants (SC, MC, MCReg) and compare against SVRTK on simulated fetal data (FaBiAN), in-vivo adult 0.55T data with simulated fetal-like motion, and in-vivo fetal 0.55T data (n=2). They report improved reconstruction SSIM and lower T2 mean absolute error compared to baselines, particularly in a 1-stack-per-TE adult experiment, and present the first qualitative in-vivo fetal T2 maps at 0.55T, suggesting that fewer than the standard three stacks per TE may suffice.

Significance. If the results hold, the contribution is practically significant: reducing the number of stacks per TE in fetal T2 mapping would shorten acquisition time and reduce motion sensitivity, which is a major bottleneck in fetal MRI. The paper builds on a strong, reproducible framework (SSVR) and adds a novel physics-informed regularizer that is computationally efficient and applicable to multi-contrast INR reconstruction. The use of external references in simulation (ground-truth T2 maps) and adults (reference T2 estimates) is a strength, as is the fully self-supervised nature of the method and the plan to release code. However, the central sparse-stack claim currently rests on a hyperparameter (α) tuned on the evaluation data and on validation against the same monoexponential model that is enforced as a regularizer, which limits the strength of the conclusions until these issues are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 Training setting and Table 3] The regularization weight α is set empirically per dataset and per setting (α=10 for 1 stack/TE, α=0.5 for adult/simulated, α=1.0 for fetal) on the same data used to report the headline results. The 1-stack-per-TE advantage of MCReg over MC (WM MAE 62.40 vs 123.57 in Table 3) is therefore a tuned result. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over α (e.g., α∈{0.1,1,10,100}) for the 1- and 2-stack settings, or use a nested validation split for hyperparameter selection, and report metrics across α values. Without this, the robustness claim for sparse inputs is not established.
  2. [§2.2 and §3 Data] The RT2 regularizer enforces the monoexponential model V_TE(x)=M0(x)exp(-TE/T2(x)). The simulated ground truth (FaBiAN) and the adult reference T2 maps are both derived using this same exponential model (adult references are obtained by fitting the same model to resampled/denoised volumes). Consequently, the reported T2 MAE improvements in Tables 2–3 partly reflect that the regularizer is handed the true generative model; they do not independently test whether the monoexponential assumption is valid for fetal tissue at 0.55T, where partial-volume and multi-exponential components are plausible. Please validate against a known multi-exponential ground truth (e.g., a multi-compartment phantom or simulation) or, at minimum, report the residual of the monoexponential fit on reconstructed volumes and discuss how model misspecification would bias the sparse-input gains.
  3. [§4 Experiment 2 / Table 3] The only significance tests reported are paired t-tests on the 1-stack/TE row, where α was specifically increased for MCReg. Six metrics are marked as significantly better without correction for multiple comparisons, and the sample size is n=10. Please report corrected p-values (e.g., Bonferroni or FDR) or bootstrap confidence intervals and effect sizes. This is important because the headline claim of sparse-input robustness rests on this single row.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4 Experiment 3 / Table 4] The text states that SVRTK overestimates T2 WM by 120 ms in Case 2, but Table 4 shows SVRTK 459±360 ms vs MCReg 386±86 ms in the 3-stack setting—a difference of 73 ms, not 120 ms. Please reconcile the reported value with the table.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] Typo: 'Comparaison' should be 'Comparison'.
  3. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] Clarify that the minimization is with respect to the INR parameters and the motion parameters Tψk, and specify the relationship between the coordinate set X and the slice sampling grid.
  4. [§3 Data, adult reference] The adult reference T2 maps are described as derived from resampling, denoising, and trilinear interpolation, with reference [25] being an abstract. Please provide a fuller description or a citable full-method reference to allow reproducibility.
  5. [§5 Conclusion] The statement that 'MCReg achieves similar T2 estimates even with just 1 stack/TE' is supported only by internal consistency in Table 4 (n=2, no reference). Please temper the conclusion to note that fetal T2 accuracy with sparse inputs remains to be verified against a reference standard.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the physics-informed regularizer and T2 fitting share a model, but T2 values are data-derived and validation uses external references.

full rationale

The central claim is not circular. MCReg's RT2 regularizer (Sec. 2.2) penalizes the OLS residual of a monoexponential fit across TEs, and T2 maps are subsequently computed with the same OLS estimator. However, the regularizer constrains the shape of log-intensity versus TE to be linear; it does not determine the slope (T2), which is inferred from the reconstructed intensities and hence from the input data. The accuracy of the resulting T2 values is tested against external references: simulated ground-truth FaBiAN maps and adult reference T2 estimates obtained by resampling/denoising [25], not against the regularizer's own output. The paper's self-citations to Dannecker et al. [21] and Jia et al. [20] are architectural bases and baselines, not a load-bearing justification for the quantitative claims; the sparse-stack gains are measured on held-out comparisons. The main caveat is that all validation, including the adult reference, assumes monoexponential decay, so if that physical model is wrong for fetal tissue the sparse-stack benefit may not generalize; this is a modeling assumption / correctness risk, not circularity. Score 1 reflects only the minor self-citation usage and the shared model between regularizer and fitting, neither of which forces the reported accuracy by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The only fitted parameter is the regularization weight alpha. The physical model and forward model are inherited from prior work; the main domain assumption is the monoexponential T2 prior.

free parameters (1)
  • alpha (regularization weight) = 0.5 (simulated/adult 3-2 stacks), 10 (1 stack/TE), 1.0 (in-vivo fetal)
    Balances intensity loss L_MC and physics regularization R_T2; set empirically for each dataset and sparsity condition in Sec 3 Training setting.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption T2 signal follows monoexponential decay V_TE(x) = M0(x) exp(-TE/T2(x)).
    Defines the regularization in Sec 2.2 and the T2 fitting in post-processing; not validated on in-vivo fetal 0.55T data.
  • domain assumption Slice-to-volume motion is described by a rigid transform per slice with outlier handling, as in SSVR [21].
    Adopted in Sec 2.1 without modification from the cited prior work.
  • domain assumption The continuous forward model including the point-spread function is known and used to simulate low-resolution slices.
    Standard INR-based SVR assumption from [15,20,21], used in the reconstruction loss in Sec 2.1.
  • domain assumption A single SIREN shared across all TEs can represent all contrasts without explicit cross-TE registration.
    Core design of MC and MCReg (Sec 2.3); the shared representation is assumed to capture anatomical redundancy across echoes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Informed Joint Multi-TE Super-Resolution with Implicit Neural Representation for Robust Fetal T2 Mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M36ZKALU

@misc{pith2026250810680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Informed Joint Multi-TE Super-Resolution with Implicit Neural Representation for Robust Fetal T2 Mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M36ZKALU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10680}
}
read the original abstract

T2 mapping in fetal brain MRI has the potential to improve characterization of the developing brain, especially at mid-field (0.55T), where T2 decay is slower. However, this is challenging as fetal MRI acquisition relies on multiple motion-corrupted stacks of thick slices, requiring slice-to-volume reconstruction (SVR) to estimate a high-resolution (HR) 3D volume. Currently, T2 mapping involves repeated acquisitions of these stacks at each echo time (TE), leading to long scan times and high sensitivity to motion. We tackle this challenge with a method that jointly reconstructs data across TEs, addressing severe motion. Our approach combines implicit neural representations with a physics-informed regularization that models T2 decay, enabling information sharing across TEs while preserving anatomical and quantitative T2 fidelity. We demonstrate state-of-the-art performance on simulated fetal brain and in vivo adult datasets with fetal-like motion. We also present the first in vivo fetal T2 mapping results at 0.55T. Our study shows potential for reducing the number of stacks per TE in T2 mapping by leveraging anatomical redundancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10680 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the framework with Slice Module and 3 variants of SR Module: SC, MC, and MCReg, our physics-informed approach (in green). joint multi-TE super-resolution reconstruction (SRR) framework using INRs. Our key contributions can be summarized as follows: (i) We jointly reconstruct all TEs within a shared continuous representation to leverage both anatomical redundancy and the exponential signal decay across TE… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of in-plane and through-plane slices of the different data sets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of T2 maps computed from different SRR methods on FaBian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visuals for Experiment 2 on Adult Data. A), Comparison of reconstruc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparaison of SVRTK and MCReg for the reconstruction of the brain and T2 map of the two in-vivo fetal subjects with 2 stacks/TE (top) and 3 stacks/TE (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PRIME-SVR: Physics-infoRmed Implicit Multi-Echo Slice-to-Volume Reconstruction for Fetal T2 mapping

    physics.med-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A self-supervised, physics-regularized neural reconstruction produces high-resolution fetal brain T2 maps at 0.55 T and 1.5 T from multi-echo MRI, with reduced acquisition time.

  2. Continuous Bangla Sign Language Translation: Mitigating the Expense of Gloss Annotation with the Assistance of Graph

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A transformer-STGCN-LSTM fusion is claimed to achieve new BLEU-4 state-of-the-art results in gloss-free sign language translation on four datasets, including a first BornilDB v1.0 benchmark.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal brain,

    M. A. Rutherford, “Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal brain,”Current Opin- ion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 21, p. 180–186, Apr. 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Assessment of brain maturation by t2-weighted mri,

    R. I. Hassinket al., “Assessment of brain maturation by t2-weighted mri,”Neuro- pediatrics, vol. 23, p. 72–74, Apr. 1992

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Impactofprematurityonthetissuepropertiesoftheneona- tal brain stem: A quantitative mr approach,

    V.Schmidbauer et al.,“Impactofprematurityonthetissuepropertiesoftheneona- tal brain stem: A quantitative mr approach,”American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 42, p. 581–589, Jan. 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Mapping human fetal brain maturation in vivo using quan- titative MRI,

    V. Schmidbaueret al., “Mapping human fetal brain maturation in vivo using quan- titative MRI,”AJNR, vol. 42, p. 2086–2093, Sept. 2021

    work page

  5. [5]

    Real-time fetal brain and placental T2* mapping at 0.55 T MRI,

    J. Aviles Verderaet al., “Real-time fetal brain and placental T2* mapping at 0.55 T MRI,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 94, no. 2, p. 615, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Combined quantitative T2* map and structural T2-weighted tissue-specific analysis for fetal brain MRI: Pilot automated pipeline

    A. U. Uus et al., “Combined quantitative T2* map and structural T2-weighted tissue-specific analysis for fetal brain MRI: Pilot automated pipeline",” inPIPPI, pp. 28–38, Springer, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Reliability and feasibility of low-field-strength fetal MRI at 0.55 T during pregnancy,

    J. Aviles Verderaet al., “Reliability and feasibility of low-field-strength fetal MRI at 0.55 T during pregnancy,”Radiology, vol. 309, no. 1, p. e223050, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Low-field mri: Clinical promise and challenges,

    T. C. Arnold, C. W. Freeman, B. Litt, and J. M. Stein, “Low-field mri: Clinical promise and challenges,”Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 57, p. 25–44, Sept. 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Retrospective motion correction in foetal MRI for clinical appli- cations: existing methods, applications and integration into clinical practice,

    A. U. Uuset al., “Retrospective motion correction in foetal MRI for clinical appli- cations: existing methods, applications and integration into clinical practice,”The British journal of radiology, vol. 96, no. 1147, p. 20220071, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Registration-based approach for reconstruction of high- resolution in utero fetal MR brain images,

    F. Rousseau et al., “Registration-based approach for reconstruction of high- resolution in utero fetal MR brain images,” Academic radiology, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1072–1081, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    MRI of moving subjects using multislice snapshot images with volume reconstruction (SVR): application to fetal, neonatal, and adult brain studies,

    S. Jiang, H. Xue, A. Glover, M. Rutherford, D. Rueckert, and J. V. Hajnal, “MRI of moving subjects using multislice snapshot images with volume reconstruction (SVR): application to fetal, neonatal, and adult brain studies,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 26, no. 7, ...

    2007

  4. [12]

    Reconstruction of fetal brain MRI with intensity matching and complete outlier removal,

    M. Kuklisova-Murgasovaet al., “Reconstruction of fetal brain MRI with intensity matching and complete outlier removal,”Medical image analysis, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1550–1564, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    An efficient total variation algorithm for super-resolution in fetal brain mri with adaptive regularization,

    S. Tourbier, X. Bresson, P. Hagmann, J.-P. Thiran, R. Meuli, and M. B. Cuadra, “An efficient total variation algorithm for super-resolution in fetal brain mri with adaptive regularization,”NeuroImage, vol. 118, p. 584–597, Sept. 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    An automated framework for localization, segmentation and super-resolution reconstruction of fetal brain MRI,

    M. Ebner et al., “An automated framework for localization, segmentation and super-resolution reconstruction of fetal brain MRI,” NeuroImage, vol. 206, p. 116324, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    NeSVoR: implicit neural representation for slice-to-volume reconstruc- tion in MRI,

    J. Xu, D. Moyer, B. Gagoski, J. E. Iglesias, P. E. Grant, P. Golland, and E. Adal- steinsson, “NeSVoR: implicit neural representation for slice-to-volume reconstruc- tion in MRI,”IEEE TMI, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1707–1719, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Implicit neural representationswithperiodicactivationfunctions,

    V. Sitzmann, J. Martel, A. Bergman, D. Lindell, and G. Wetzstein, “Implicit neural representationswithperiodicactivationfunctions,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 7462–7473, 2020. 12 B. Bulut, M. Dannecker et al

    2020

  10. [18]

    IREM: High-resolution magnetic resonance image reconstruction via implicit neural representation,

    Q. Wu et al., “IREM: High-resolution magnetic resonance image reconstruction via implicit neural representation,” inMICCAI, Part VI 24, pp. 65–74, Springer, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Single-subject multi-contrast mri super-resolution via implicit neural representations,

    J. McGinniset al., “Single-subject multi-contrast mri super-resolution via implicit neural representations,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 173–183, Springer, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Joint multi-contrast reconstruction of fetal mri based on implicit neural representations,

    S. Jia et al., “Joint multi-contrast reconstruction of fetal mri based on implicit neural representations,” inPIPPI, pp. 14–23, Springer, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Meta-learning slice-to-volume reconstruction in fetal brain MRIusingimplicitneuralrepresentations,

    M. Dannecker et al., “Meta-learning slice-to-volume reconstruction in fetal brain MRIusingimplicitneuralrepresentations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09565,2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    In vivoT2measurementsofthefetal brainusingsingle-shot fast spin echo sequences,

    S.Bhattacharya et al.,“In vivoT2measurementsofthefetal brainusingsingle-shot fast spin echo sequences,”MRM, vol. 92, p. 715–729, Apr. 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Scanner-based real-time three-dimensional brain+ body slice-to- volume reconstruction for T2-weighted 0.55-T low-field fetal magnetic resonance imaging,

    A. Uus et al., “Scanner-based real-time three-dimensional brain+ body slice-to- volume reconstruction for T2-weighted 0.55-T low-field fetal magnetic resonance imaging,” Pediatric Radiology, pp. 1–14, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    T2 mapping from super-resolution-reconstructed clinical fast spin echo magnetic resonance acquisitions,

    H. Lajouset al., “T2 mapping from super-resolution-reconstructed clinical fast spin echo magnetic resonance acquisitions,” inMICCAI, Springer, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    T2 mapping from fast 2d spin echo magnetic resonance acquisi- tion at low field,

    M. Rouletet al., “T2 mapping from fast 2d spin echo magnetic resonance acquisi- tion at low field,” inESMRMB Abstract, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    T2* relaxometry of fetal brain at 1.5 tesla using a motion tolerant method,

    S. Vasylechkoet al., “T2* relaxometry of fetal brain at 1.5 tesla using a motion tolerant method,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 1795–1802, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    3D in utero quantification of T2* relaxation times in hu- man fetal brain tissues for age optimized structural and functional mri,

    A. I. Blazejewskaet al., “3D in utero quantification of T2* relaxation times in hu- man fetal brain tissues for age optimized structural and functional mri,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 909–916, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    T2* relaxometry of fetal brain structures using low-field (0.55T) MRI,

    K. Payetteet al., “T2* relaxometry of fetal brain structures using low-field (0.55T) MRI,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 93, p. 1942–1953, Dec. 2024

    1942

  21. [29]

    SVoRT: Iterative transformer for slice-to-volume registration in fe- tal brain MRI,

    J. Xu et al., “SVoRT: Iterative transformer for slice-to-volume registration in fe- tal brain MRI,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 3–13, Springer, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Haacke, R

    E. Haacke, R. Brown, M. Thompson, and R. Venkatesan,Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Physical Principles and Sequence Design. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1999

    1999

  23. [31]

    A fetal brain magnetic resonance acquisition numerical phantom (fabian),

    H. Lajouset al., “A fetal brain magnetic resonance acquisition numerical phantom (fabian),” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 8682, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    A dataset of synthetic, maturation-informed magnetic resonance images of the human fetal brain,

    H. Lajouset al., “A dataset of synthetic, maturation-informed magnetic resonance images of the human fetal brain,”Scientific data, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 602, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    TheANTsXecosystemforquantitativebiologicalandmedical imaging,

    N.J.Tustison et al.,“TheANTsXecosystemforquantitativebiologicalandmedical imaging,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, p. 9068, Apr. 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Automated brain extraction of multi-sequence mri using artificial neural networks,

    F. Isenseeet al., “Automated brain extraction of multi-sequence mri using artificial neural networks,” 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Synthseg: Segmentation of brain mri scans of any contrast and resolution without retraining,

    B. Billot et al., “Synthseg: Segmentation of brain mri scans of any contrast and resolution without retraining,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 86, p. 102789, May 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Drifts: Optimizing domain randomization with synthetic data and weight interpolation for fetal brain tissue segmentation,

    V. Zalevskyi et al., “Drifts: Optimizing domain randomization with synthetic data and weight interpolation for fetal brain tissue segmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06842, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural simi- larity,

    Z. Wanget al., “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural simi- larity,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.