Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of MRI acquisition parameter variations and protocol heterogeneity on the results of texture analysis and pattern discrimination: An application‐oriented study

Mayerhoefer, Marius E., Szomolanyi, Pavol, Jirak, Daniel, Materka, Andrzej, Trattnig, Siegfried·2009·Medical Physics

Abstract

MRI texture features are generally considered to be sensitive to variations in signal‐to‐noise ratio and spatial resolution, which represents an obstacle for the widespread clinical application of texture‐based pattern discrimination with MRI. This study investigates the sensitivity of texture features of different categories (co‐occurrence matrix, run‐length matrix, absolute gradient, autoregressive model, and wavelet transform) to variations in the number of acquisitions (NAs), repetition time (TR), echo time (TE), and sampling bandwidth (SBW) at different spatial resolutions. Special emphasis was placed on the influence of MRI protocol heterogeneity and implications for the results of pattern discrimination. Experiments were performed using two polystyrene spheres and agar gel phantoms with different nodular patterns. T2‐weighted multislice multiecho images were obtained using a 3.0 T scanner equipped with a microimaging gradient insert coil. Linear discriminant analysis and k nearest neighbor classification were used for texture‐based pattern discrimination. Results show that texture features of all categories are increasingly sensitive to acquisition parameter variations with increasing spatial resolution. Nevertheless, as long as the spatial resolution is sufficiently high, variations in NA, TR, TE, and SBW have little effect on the results of pattern discrimination. Texture features derived from the co‐occurrence matrix are superior to features of other categories because they enable discrimination of different patterns close to the resolution limits for the smallest structures of physical texture even for datasets that are heterogeneous with regard to different acquisition parameters, including spatial resolution.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1118/1.3081408

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Mayerhoefer, M. E., Szomolanyi, P., Jirak, D., Materka, A., & Trattnig, S.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03-18
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
1236-1243
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2040454936
Cited by
225
References
1
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of MRI acquisition parameter variations and protocol heterogeneity on the results of texture analysis and pattern discrimination: An application‐oriented study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.3081408
The paper
Mayerhoefer, M. E., Szomolanyi, P., Jirak, D., Materka, A., & Trattnig, S. (2009). Effects of MRI acquisition parameter variations and protocol heterogeneity on the results of texture analysis and pattern discrimination: An application‐oriented study. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3081408

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.