↓ Skip to main content

Fast GRAPPA reconstruction with random projection

Overview of attention for article published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Fast GRAPPA reconstruction with random projection
Published in
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/mrm.25373
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To address the issue of computational complexity in generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) when several calibration data are used. GRAPPA requires fully sampled data for accurate calibration with increasing data needed for higher reduction factors to maintain accuracy, which leads to longer computational time, especially in a three-dimensional (3D) setting and with higher channel count coils. Channel reduction methods have been developed to address this issue when massive array coils are used. In this study, the complexity problem was addressed from a different prospective. Instead of compressing to fewer channels, we propose the use of random projections to reduce the dimension of the linear equation in the calibration phase. The equivalence before and after the reduction is supported by the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma. The proposed random projection method can be integrated with channel reduction sequentially for even higher computational efficiency. Experimental results show that GRAPPA with random projection can achieve comparable image quality with much less computational time when compared with conventional GRAPPA without random projection. The proposed random projection method is able to reduce the computational time of GRAPPA, especially in a 3D setting, without compromising the image quality, or to improve the reconstruction quality by allowing more data for calibration when the computational time is a limiting factor. Magn Reson Med 74:71-80, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 23%
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 46%
Computer Science 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Mathematics 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2021.
All research outputs
#8,198,620
of 24,565,648 outputs
Outputs from Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
#2,695
of 7,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,319
of 209,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
#22
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,565,648 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,062 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 209,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.