Florian Knoll1,2, Kerstin Hammernik1,2,3, Erich Kobler3, Thomas Pock3,4, Michael P Recht1,2, Daniel K Sodickson1,2. 1. Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 2. Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R), New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 3. Institute of Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria. 4. Center for Vision, Automation & Control, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although deep learning has shown great promise for MR image reconstruction, an open question regarding the success of this approach is the robustness in the case of deviations between training and test data. The goal of this study is to assess the influence of image contrast, SNR, and image content on the generalization of learned image reconstruction, and to demonstrate the potential for transfer learning. METHODS: Reconstructions were trained from undersampled data using data sets with varying SNR, sampling pattern, image contrast, and synthetic data generated from a public image database. The performance of the trained reconstructions was evaluated on 10 in vivo patient knee MRI acquisitions from 2 different pulse sequences that were not used during training. Transfer learning was evaluated by fine-tuning baseline trainings from synthetic data with a small subset of in vivo MR training data. RESULTS: Deviations in SNR between training and testing led to substantial decreases in reconstruction image quality, whereas image contrast was less relevant. Trainings from heterogeneous training data generalized well toward the test data with a range of acquisition parameters. Trainings from synthetic, non-MR image data showed residual aliasing artifacts, which could be removed by transfer learning-inspired fine-tuning. CONCLUSION: This study presents insights into the generalization ability of learned image reconstruction with respect to deviations in the acquisition settings between training and testing. It also provides an outlook for the potential of transfer learning to fine-tune trainings to a particular target application using only a small number of training cases.
PURPOSE: Although deep learning has shown great promise for MR image reconstruction, an open question regarding the success of this approach is the robustness in the case of deviations between training and test data. The goal of this study is to assess the influence of image contrast, SNR, and image content on the generalization of learned image reconstruction, and to demonstrate the potential for transfer learning. METHODS: Reconstructions were trained from undersampled data using data sets with varying SNR, sampling pattern, image contrast, and synthetic data generated from a public image database. The performance of the trained reconstructions was evaluated on 10 in vivo patient knee MRI acquisitions from 2 different pulse sequences that were not used during training. Transfer learning was evaluated by fine-tuning baseline trainings from synthetic data with a small subset of in vivo MR training data. RESULTS: Deviations in SNR between training and testing led to substantial decreases in reconstruction image quality, whereas image contrast was less relevant. Trainings from heterogeneous training data generalized well toward the test data with a range of acquisition parameters. Trainings from synthetic, non-MR image data showed residual aliasing artifacts, which could be removed by transfer learning-inspired fine-tuning. CONCLUSION: This study presents insights into the generalization ability of learned image reconstruction with respect to deviations in the acquisition settings between training and testing. It also provides an outlook for the potential of transfer learning to fine-tune trainings to a particular target application using only a small number of training cases.
Authors: Kerstin Hammernik; Teresa Klatzer; Erich Kobler; Michael P Recht; Daniel K Sodickson; Thomas Pock; Florian Knoll Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Martin Uecker; Peng Lai; Mark J Murphy; Patrick Virtue; Michael Elad; John M Pauly; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Michael Lustig Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Matthew J Muckley; Benjamin Ades-Aron; Antonios Papaioannou; Gregory Lemberskiy; Eddy Solomon; Yvonne W Lui; Daniel K Sodickson; Els Fieremans; Dmitry S Novikov; Florian Knoll Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Mario O Malavé; Corey A Baron; Srivathsan P Koundinyan; Christopher M Sandino; Frank Ong; Joseph Y Cheng; Dwight G Nishimura Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Florian Knoll; Jure Zbontar; Anuroop Sriram; Matthew J Muckley; Mary Bruno; Aaron Defazio; Marc Parente; Krzysztof J Geras; Joe Katsnelson; Hersh Chandarana; Zizhao Zhang; Michal Drozdzalv; Adriana Romero; Michael Rabbat; Pascal Vincent; James Pinkerton; Duo Wang; Nafissa Yakubova; Erich Owens; C Lawrence Zitnick; Michael P Recht; Daniel K Sodickson; Yvonne W Lui Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-01-29
Authors: Florian Knoll; Tullie Murrell; Anuroop Sriram; Nafissa Yakubova; Jure Zbontar; Michael Rabbat; Aaron Defazio; Matthew J Muckley; Daniel K Sodickson; C Lawrence Zitnick; Michael P Recht Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Seyed Amir Hossein Hosseini; Burhaneddin Yaman; Steen Moeller; Mingyi Hong; Mehmet Akçakaya Journal: IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 6.856
Authors: Christopher M Sandino; Joseph Y Cheng; Feiyu Chen; Morteza Mardani; John M Pauly; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: IEEE Signal Process Mag Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 12.551