Given a hypergraph H(V,E),a set of vertices S⊆V is a vertex cover if every edge has at least one vertex in S.The vertex cover number is the minimum cardinality of a vertex cover,denoted byτ(H).In this paper,we prove ...Given a hypergraph H(V,E),a set of vertices S⊆V is a vertex cover if every edge has at least one vertex in S.The vertex cover number is the minimum cardinality of a vertex cover,denoted byτ(H).In this paper,we prove that for every 3-uniform connected hypergraph H(V,E),τ(H)≤2m3+1/3 holds on where m is the number of edges.Furthermore,the equality holds on if and only if H(V,E)is a hypertree with perfect matching.展开更多
Background: Non-uniformity in signal intensity occurs commonly in magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, which may pose substantial problems when using a 3T scanner. Therefore, image non-uniformity correction is usually app...Background: Non-uniformity in signal intensity occurs commonly in magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, which may pose substantial problems when using a 3T scanner. Therefore, image non-uniformity correction is usually applied. Purpose: To compare the correction effects of the phased-array uniformity enhancement (PURE), a calibration-based image non-uniformity correction method, among three different software versions in 3T Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Material and Methods: Hepatobiliary-phase images of a total of 120 patients who underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging on the same 3T scanner were analyzed retrospectively. Forty patients each were examined using three software versions (DV25, DV25.1, and DV26). The effects of PURE were compared by visual assessment, histogram analysis of liver signal intensity, evaluation of the spatial distribution of correction effects, and evaluation of quantitative indices of liver parenchymal enhancement. Results: The visual assessment indicated the highest uniformity of PURE-corrected images for DV26, followed by DV25 and DV25.1. Histogram analysis of corrected images demonstrated significantly larger variations in liver signal for DV25.1 than for the other two versions. Although PURE caused a relative increase in pixel values for central and lateral regions, such effects were weaker for DV25.1 than for the other two versions. In the evaluation of quantitative indices of liver parenchymal enhancement, the liver-to-muscle ratio (LMR) was significantly higher for the corrected images than for the uncorrected images, but the liver-to-spleen ratio (LSR) showed no significant differences. For corrected images, the LMR was significantly higher for DV25 and DV26 than for DV25.1, but the LSR showed no significant differences among the three versions. Conclusion: There were differences in the effects of PURE among the three software versions in 3T Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Even if the non-uniformity correction method has the same brand name, correction effects may differ depending on the software version, and these differences may affect visual and quantitative evaluations.展开更多
基金This paper was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11901605).
文摘Given a hypergraph H(V,E),a set of vertices S⊆V is a vertex cover if every edge has at least one vertex in S.The vertex cover number is the minimum cardinality of a vertex cover,denoted byτ(H).In this paper,we prove that for every 3-uniform connected hypergraph H(V,E),τ(H)≤2m3+1/3 holds on where m is the number of edges.Furthermore,the equality holds on if and only if H(V,E)is a hypertree with perfect matching.
文摘Background: Non-uniformity in signal intensity occurs commonly in magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, which may pose substantial problems when using a 3T scanner. Therefore, image non-uniformity correction is usually applied. Purpose: To compare the correction effects of the phased-array uniformity enhancement (PURE), a calibration-based image non-uniformity correction method, among three different software versions in 3T Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Material and Methods: Hepatobiliary-phase images of a total of 120 patients who underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging on the same 3T scanner were analyzed retrospectively. Forty patients each were examined using three software versions (DV25, DV25.1, and DV26). The effects of PURE were compared by visual assessment, histogram analysis of liver signal intensity, evaluation of the spatial distribution of correction effects, and evaluation of quantitative indices of liver parenchymal enhancement. Results: The visual assessment indicated the highest uniformity of PURE-corrected images for DV26, followed by DV25 and DV25.1. Histogram analysis of corrected images demonstrated significantly larger variations in liver signal for DV25.1 than for the other two versions. Although PURE caused a relative increase in pixel values for central and lateral regions, such effects were weaker for DV25.1 than for the other two versions. In the evaluation of quantitative indices of liver parenchymal enhancement, the liver-to-muscle ratio (LMR) was significantly higher for the corrected images than for the uncorrected images, but the liver-to-spleen ratio (LSR) showed no significant differences. For corrected images, the LMR was significantly higher for DV25 and DV26 than for DV25.1, but the LSR showed no significant differences among the three versions. Conclusion: There were differences in the effects of PURE among the three software versions in 3T Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Even if the non-uniformity correction method has the same brand name, correction effects may differ depending on the software version, and these differences may affect visual and quantitative evaluations.
