PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of various software (SW) tools used for quantitative image analysis to properly account for source-specific image scaling employed by magnetic resonance imaging manufacturers. METHODS: A series of gadoteridol-doped distilled water solutions (0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% volume concentrations) was prepared for manual substitution into one (of three) phantom compartments to create "variable signal," whereas the other two compartments (containing mineral oil and 0.25% gadoteriol) were held unchanged. Pseudodynamic images were acquired over multiple series using four scanners such that the histogram of pixel intensities varied enough to provoke variable image scaling from series to series. Additional diffusion-weighted images were acquired of an ice-water phantom to generate scanner-specific apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. The resulting pseudodynamic images and ADC maps were analyzed by eight centers of the Quantitative Imaging Network using 16 different SW tools to measure compartment-specific region-of-interest intensity. RESULTS: Images generated by one of the scanners appeared to have additional intensity scaling that was not accounted for by the majority of tested quantitative image analysis SW tools. Incorrect image scaling leads to intensity measurement bias near 100%, compared to nonscaled images. CONCLUSION: Corrective actions for image scaling are suggested for manufacturers and quantitative imaging community.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of various software (SW) tools used for quantitative image analysis to properly account for source-specific image scaling employed by magnetic resonance imaging manufacturers. METHODS: A series of gadoteridol-doped distilled water solutions (0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% volume concentrations) was prepared for manual substitution into one (of three) phantom compartments to create "variable signal," whereas the other two compartments (containing mineral oil and 0.25% gadoteriol) were held unchanged. Pseudodynamic images were acquired over multiple series using four scanners such that the histogram of pixel intensities varied enough to provoke variable image scaling from series to series. Additional diffusion-weighted images were acquired of an ice-water phantom to generate scanner-specific apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. The resulting pseudodynamic images and ADC maps were analyzed by eight centers of the Quantitative Imaging Network using 16 different SW tools to measure compartment-specific region-of-interest intensity. RESULTS: Images generated by one of the scanners appeared to have additional intensity scaling that was not accounted for by the majority of tested quantitative image analysis SW tools. Incorrect image scaling leads to intensity measurement bias near 100%, compared to nonscaled images. CONCLUSION: Corrective actions for image scaling are suggested for manufacturers and quantitative imaging community.
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Alan Jackson; Geoff J M Parker; Caleb Roberts; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Richard G Boyes; Jeff L Gunter; Chris Frost; Andrew L Janke; Thomas Yeatman; Derek L G Hill; Matt A Bernstein; Paul M Thompson; Michael W Weiner; Norbert Schuff; Gene E Alexander; Ronald J Killiany; Charles DeCarli; Clifford R Jack; Nick C Fox Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-10-30 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Thomas L Chenevert; Craig J Galbán; Marko K Ivancevic; Susan E Rohrer; Frank J Londy; Thomas C Kwee; Charles R Meyer; Timothy D Johnson; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Elizabeth R Gerstner; James M Mountz; Lawrence H Schwartz; Christopher W Ryan; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti; Fiona M Fennessy; Edward A Eikman; Virendra Kumar; Kenneth M Forster; Richard L Wahl; Frank S Lieberman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: David A Hormuth; Angela M Jarrett; Ernesto A B F Lima; Matthew T McKenna; David T Fuentes; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-02
Authors: Nicolas F Michoux; Jakub W Ceranka; Jef Vandemeulebroucke; Frank Peeters; Pierre Lu; Julie Absil; Perrine Triqueneaux; Yan Liu; Laurence Collette; Inneke Willekens; Carola Brussaard; Olivier Debeir; Stephan Hahn; Hubert Raeymaekers; Johan de Mey; Thierry Metens; Frédéric E Lecouvet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Octavia Bane; Stefanie J Hectors; Mathilde Wagner; Lori L Arlinghaus; Madhava P Aryal; Yue Cao; Thomas L Chenevert; Fiona Fennessy; Wei Huang; Nola M Hylton; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Kathryn E Keenan; Dariya I Malyarenko; Robert V Mulkern; David C Newitt; Stephen E Russek; Karl F Stupic; Alina Tudorica; Lisa J Wilmes; Thomas E Yankeelov; Yi-Fei Yen; Michael A Boss; Bachir Taouli Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Nicholas Hobson; Sean P Polster; Ying Cao; Kelly Flemming; Yunhong Shu; John Huston; Chandra Y Gerrard; Reed Selwyn; Marc Mabray; Atif Zafar; Romuald Girard; Julián Carrión-Penagos; Yu Fen Chen; Todd Parrish; Xiaohong Joe Zhou; James I Koenig; Robert Shenkar; Agnieszka Stadnik; Janne Koskimäki; Alexey Dimov; Dallas Turley; Timothy Carroll; Issam A Awad Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Zydrunas Gimbutas; Andrew Dienstfrey; Karl F Stupic; Michael A Boss; Stephen E Russek; Thomas L Chenevert; P V Prasad; Junyu Guo; Wilburn E Reddick; Kim M Cecil; Amita Shukla-Dave; David Aramburu Nunez; Amaresh Shridhar Konar; Michael Z Liu; Sachin R Jambawalikar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Jie Zheng; Peng Hu; Edward F Jackson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.240