Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...

Trimmed Mean

Trimmed Mean

While measuring the mean of a data set, care needs to be taken when associating the mean to its central tendency. The same goes for the arithmetic mean, the geometric mean, or the harmonic mean. This is because the presence of a single outlier data value can significantly affect the mean. That is, the mean is sensitive to fluctuations in the data set.
Although certain measures of central tendency are not sensitive to outliers, there are alternative versions of the mean that get around the...

Deconvolution

Deconvolution

Deconvolution, also known as inverse filtering, is the process of extracting the impulse response from known input and output signals. This technique is vital in scenarios where the system's characteristics are unknown, and they must be inferred from the observable signals.
Deconvolution involves several mathematical techniques to derive the impulse response. One common approach is polynomial division. In this method, the input and output sequences are treated as coefficients of...

Spherical Coordinates

Spherical Coordinates

Spherical coordinate systems are preferred over Cartesian, polar, or cylindrical coordinates for systems with spherical symmetry. For example, to describe the surface of a sphere, Cartesian coordinates require all three coordinates. On the other hand, the spherical coordinate system requires only one parameter: the sphere's radius. As a result, the complicated mathematical calculations become simple. Spherical coordinates are used in science and engineering applications like electric and...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Susceptibility Source Separation Unveils Paramagnetic and Diamagnetic Trajectories in Healthy Brains From 5 to 90 Years.

NMR in biomedicine·2026

Same author

Two Flavones as Markers for the Distinction of Natural Acacia Honey Based on the UHPLC-QE-MS Method and Research on Their Potential Immunomodulatory Activity.

Food science & nutrition·2026

Same author

Neoadjuvant camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in resectable stage IIIA-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer: integrated multidimensional biomarker analysis from a phase II study.

Journal for immunotherapy of cancer·2026

Same author

Sintilimab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced small cell lung cancer (SINCE-01): a phase II clinical trial.

Signal transduction and targeted therapy·2026

Same author

Myelin damage in radiologically isolated syndrome is associated with decreased processing speed.

Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical·2026

Same author

Breaking the Limits of Low-Field MRI: Deep Learning Approaches to Image Enhancement.

NMR in biomedicine·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 11, 2026

A Multimodal Imaging Framework to Advance Phenotyping of Living Label-free Breast Cancer Cells

A Multimodal Imaging Framework to Advance Phenotyping of Living Label-free Breast Cancer Cells

Published on: August 22, 2025

Background field removal using spherical mean value filtering and Tikhonov regularization.

Hongfu Sun¹, Alan H Wilman

¹Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

|May 14, 2013

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

A new method, regularization enabled SHARP (RESHARP), effectively removes background field artifacts. This improves susceptibility mapping accuracy, especially in iron-rich brain regions, compared to the standard SHARP method.

More Related Videos

AMEBaS: Automatic Midline Extraction and Background Subtraction of Ratiometric Fluorescence Time-Lapses of Polarized Single Cells

AMEBaS: Automatic Midline Extraction and Background Subtraction of Ratiometric Fluorescence Time-Lapses of Polarized Single Cells

Published on: June 23, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 11, 2026

A Multimodal Imaging Framework to Advance Phenotyping of Living Label-free Breast Cancer Cells

A Multimodal Imaging Framework to Advance Phenotyping of Living Label-free Breast Cancer Cells

Published on: August 22, 2025

AMEBaS: Automatic Midline Extraction and Background Subtraction of Ratiometric Fluorescence Time-Lapses of Polarized Single Cells

AMEBaS: Automatic Midline Extraction and Background Subtraction of Ratiometric Fluorescence Time-Lapses of Polarized Single Cells

Published on: June 23, 2023

Area of Science:

Medical Imaging
Neuroimaging
Biophysics

Background:

Background field artifacts complicate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analyses.
Accurate susceptibility mapping is crucial for understanding brain structure and function.
Existing methods like SHARP have limitations in artifact removal.

Purpose of the Study:

Introduce a novel artifact removal technique, regularization enabled SHARP (RESHARP).
Enhance the accuracy of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM).
Evaluate RESHARP's performance against the standard SHARP method.

Main Methods:

Developed RESHARP by incorporating Tikhonov regularization into the SHARP deconvolution process.
Compared RESHARP and SHARP using simulated field data.
Validated RESHARP in human brain MRI experiments.

Main Results:

RESHARP reduced field map error by 17.4% in simulations compared to SHARP.
RESHARP yielded a 6.5% relative error in susceptibility maps, versus 48.5% for SHARP.
In vivo, RESHARP showed fewer artifacts in brain field and susceptibility maps, particularly at boundaries.
Susceptibility measurements in deep gray matter were more consistent with RESHARP.

Conclusions:

RESHARP offers superior background artifact removal compared to SHARP.
The improved artifact removal leads to more accurate susceptibility measurements.
RESHARP enhances the reliability of quantitative susceptibility mapping in the brain.