2015 IET International Conference on Biomedical Image and Signal Processing (ICBISP 2015) 2015
DOI: 10.1049/cp.2015.0780
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Magnetic resonance image reconstruction via L0-norm minimization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The optimization metric (i.e., the objective function) can be set up as the sum of the l 0 -norm of all pixels in the image as (5) One difficulty of minimizing (5) is that the l 0 -norm is not differentiable and is not easy to optimize. One common method to mitigate the difficulty is to use the l 1 -norm approximation [9][10][11][12][13].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The optimization metric (i.e., the objective function) can be set up as the sum of the l 0 -norm of all pixels in the image as (5) One difficulty of minimizing (5) is that the l 0 -norm is not differentiable and is not easy to optimize. One common method to mitigate the difficulty is to use the l 1 -norm approximation [9][10][11][12][13].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many researchers have attempted to tackle the l 0 -norm minimization problem. The work in [5] converted the l 0 -norm minimization problem into an unconstrained augment Lagrange problem. The work in [6] solved the l 0 -norm minimization problem by introducing auxiliary variables.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Quality evaluation methods at the acquisition stage involves modifying the design of system hardware, optimizing acquisition parameters and the implementation of undersampling and constrained reconstruction schemes to reduce acquisition time and generate high quality images. Proposed methods in this category include [20], [6], [37], [32], [53], [18]. There are very few contributions on post-acquisition quality evaluation for brain MRI images.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%