[throwaway4220]

Yes, definitely true for many artifacts! Although due to Nyquist, ghosting artifacts sometimes require you to increase the field of view.

What bothers me here is when the artifacts hide underlying pathology, and these algorithms "learn" what a normal knee mri looks like and just show you that. IMO it is a medical liability that must be addressed.

[viraptor]

Yeah, I'm worried how any automatic correction which is not completely specified can be used in medical imaging. We sometimes fail to even compress images correctly (remember the scanners changing numbers due to compression?), so trying to automatically remove artefacts sounds dangerous. We already teach doctors about the artefacts and how to handle them. The image doesn't need to be pretty - just functional.

[lostlogin]

This is mostly handled by MR techs and it is their job to sort this out. Many of the automated tasks are pretty good, and those that aren’t get rejected fast. We don’t tend to get a new sequence/tool/parameter and just run with it, it’s used with the old one until a degree of trust and understanding is established. I’m an MR tech shirking off.

[throwaway4220]

Yeah, I would trust an MR tech's tried and tested parameters way before trusting any fancy algorithm or even a new sequence.