Search or filter publications

Filter by type:

Filter by publication type

Filter by year:

to

Results

  • Showing results for:
  • Reset all filters

Search results

  • Journal article
    Grech-Sollars M, Saunders DE, Phipps KP, Clayden JD, Clark CAet al., 2013,

    Response to "Reply to 'Survival analysis for apparent diffusion coefficient measures in children with embryonal brain tumors,' by Grech-Sollars et al"

    , NEURO-ONCOLOGY, Vol: 15, Pages: 268-268, ISSN: 1522-8517
  • Journal article
    Solanky BS, Abdel-Aziz K, Yiannakas MC, Berry AM, Ciccarelli O, Wheeler-Kingshott CAMet al., 2013,

    <i>In vivo</i> magnetic resonance spectroscopy detection of combined glutamate-glutamine in healthy upper cervical cord at 3T

    , NMR IN BIOMEDICINE, Vol: 26, Pages: 357-366, ISSN: 0952-3480
  • Journal article
    McGill L-A, Ismail T, Nielles-Vallespin S, Ferreira P, Scott AD, Roughton M, Kilner PJ, Ho SY, McCarthy KP, Gatehouse PD, de Silva R, Speier P, Feiweier T, Mekkaoui C, Sosnovik DE, Prasad SK, Firmin DN, Pennell DJet al., 2013,

    reproducibility of in-vivo diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (vol 14, pg 86, 2012)

    , JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE, Vol: 15, ISSN: 1097-6647
  • Conference paper
    Wang H, Bangerter N, Adluru G, Kholmovski EG, Xu J, DiBella EVRet al., 2013,

    Centric and Reverse-Centric Trajectories for Undersampled 3D Saturation Recovery Cardiac Perfusion Imaging

    , ISMRM 21st Annual Meeting
  • Conference paper
    Muelly M, Watkins RD, Jordan C, Bangerter N, Gold GEet al., 2013,

    Comparison of Multi Nuclear Coil Designs for 1H and 23Na in the Human Knee

    , ISMRM 21st Annual Meeting
  • Conference paper
    Jordan CD, Monu UD, McWalter EJ, Watkins RD, Chen W, Bangerter N, Hargreaves BA, Gold GEet al., 2013,

    CubeQuant T1rho, QDESS T2, and Cones Sodium Measurements Are Sufficiently Reproducible for In Vivo Cartilage Studies

    , ISMRM 21st Annual Meeting
  • Conference paper
    Kaggie JD, Hadley JR, Badal J, Campbell JR, Park DJ, Parker DL, Morrell G, Newbould RD, Wood AF, Bangerter NKet al., 2013,

    A 3T Sodium and Proton Breast Array

    , ISMRM 21st Annual Meeting
  • Conference paper
    Wang H, Bangerter N, Schabel M, Schabel A, Salzman K, DiBella EVRet al., 2013,

    Whole Brain Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Imaging via Compressed Sensing Techniques

    , ISMRM 21st Annual Meeting
  • Journal article
    Ismail TF, Jabbour A, Gulati A, Mistry N, Abdel-Malek M, Hewins B, Wage R, Roughton M, Ferreira PF, Gatehouse PD, Firmin DN, Pennell DJ, Kellman P, Prasad SKet al., 2013,

    Role of T1 and T2-mapping in assessing the myocardial interstitium in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study

    , Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Vol: 15, ISSN: 1097-6647
  • Journal article
    Yang GUANG, Hipwell J, Hawkes D, Arridge Set al., 2013,

    Numerical methods for coupled reconstruction and registration in digital breast tomosynthesis.

    , Annals of the British Machine Vision Association, Vol: 2013, Pages: 1-38

    Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) provides an insight into the fine details of normalfibroglandular tissues and abnormal lesions by reconstructing a pseudo-3D image of thebreast. In this respect, DBT overcomes a major limitation of conventional X-ray mam-mography by reducing the confounding effects caused by the superposition of breasttissue. In a breast cancer screening or diagnostic context, a radiologist is interested indetecting change, which might be indicative of malignant disease. To help automatethis task image registration is required to establish spatial correspondence between timepoints. Typically, images, such as MRI or CT, are first reconstructed and then registered.This approach can be effective if reconstructing using a complete set of data. However,for ill-posed, limited-angle problems such as DBT, estimating the deformation is com-plicated by the significant artefacts associated with the reconstruction, leading to severeinaccuracies in the registration.This paper presents a mathematical framework, which couples the two tasks andjointly estimates both image intensities and the parameters of a transformation. Underthis framework, we compare an iterative method and a simultaneous method, both ofwhich tackle the problem of comparing DBT data by combining reconstruction of a pairof temporal volumes with their registration.We evaluate our methods using various computational digital phantoms, uncom-pressed breast MR images, and in-vivo DBT simulations. Firstly, we compare both iter-ative and simultaneous methods to the conventional, sequential method using an affinetransformation model. We show that jointly estimating image intensities and parametrictransformations gives superior results with respect to reconstruction fidelity and regis-tration accuracy. Also, we incorporate a non-rigid B-spline transformation model intoour simultaneous method. The results demonstrate a visually plausible recovery of thedeformation w

This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.

Request URL: http://www.imperial.ac.uk:80/respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-t4-html.jsp Request URI: /respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-t4-html.jsp Query String: id=1107&limit=10&resgrpMemberPubs=true&resgrpMemberPubs=true&page=64&respub-action=search.html Current Millis: 1765368148249 Current Time: Wed Dec 10 12:02:28 GMT 2025

Contact


For enquiries about the MRI Physics Collective, please contact:

Mary Finnegan
Senior MR Physicist at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

Pete Lally
Assistant Professor in Magnetic Resonance (MR) Physics at Imperial College

Jan Sedlacik
MR Physicist at the Robert Steiner MR Unit, Hammersmith Hospital Campus