Juha I Peltonen1,2, Teemu Mäkelä3,4, Eero Salli3. 1. HUS Medical Imaging Center, Radiology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 340, FI-00029, Helsinki, Finland. juha.peltonen@hus.fi. 2. Department of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, School of Science, Aalto University, P.O. Box 12200, FI-00076, Espoo, Finland. juha.peltonen@hus.fi. 3. HUS Medical Imaging Center, Radiology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 340, FI-00029, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 64, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Quality assurance (QA) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) often relies on imaging phantoms with suitable structures and uniform regions. However, the connection between phantom measurements and actual clinical image quality is ambiguous. Thus, it is desirable to measure objective image quality directly from clinical images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this work, four measurements suitable for clinical image QA were presented: image resolution, contrast-to-noise ratio, quality index and bias index. The methods were applied to a large cohort of clinical 3D FLAIR volumes over a test period of 9.5 months. The results were compared with phantom QA. Additionally, the effect of patient movement on the presented measures was studied. RESULTS: A connection between the presented clinical QA methods and scanner performance was observed: the values reacted to MRI equipment breakdowns that occurred during the study period. No apparent correlation with phantom QA results was found. The patient movement was found to have a significant effect on the resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio values. DISCUSSION: QA based on clinical images provides a direct method for following MRI scanner performance. The methods could be used to detect problems, and potentially reduce scanner downtime. Furthermore, with the presented methodologies comparisons could be made between different sequences and imaging settings. In the future, an online QA system could recognize insufficient image quality and suggest an immediate re-scan.
OBJECTIVE: Quality assurance (QA) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) often relies on imaging phantoms with suitable structures and uniform regions. However, the connection between phantom measurements and actual clinical image quality is ambiguous. Thus, it is desirable to measure objective image quality directly from clinical images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this work, four measurements suitable for clinical image QA were presented: image resolution, contrast-to-noise ratio, quality index and bias index. The methods were applied to a large cohort of clinical 3D FLAIR volumes over a test period of 9.5 months. The results were compared with phantom QA. Additionally, the effect of patient movement on the presented measures was studied. RESULTS: A connection between the presented clinical QA methods and scanner performance was observed: the values reacted to MRI equipment breakdowns that occurred during the study period. No apparent correlation with phantom QA results was found. The patient movement was found to have a significant effect on the resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio values. DISCUSSION: QA based on clinical images provides a direct method for following MRI scanner performance. The methods could be used to detect problems, and potentially reduce scanner downtime. Furthermore, with the presented methodologies comparisons could be made between different sequences and imaging settings. In the future, an online QA system could recognize insufficient image quality and suggest an immediate re-scan.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computer-assisted image analysis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Quality assurance; Quality control
Authors: Jalal B Andre; Brian W Bresnahan; Mahmud Mossa-Basha; Michael N Hoff; C Patrick Smith; Yoshimi Anzai; Wendy A Cohen Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Oscar Esteban; Daniel Birman; Marie Schaer; Oluwasanmi O Koyejo; Russell A Poldrack; Krzysztof J Gorgolewski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Declan T Chard; Geoffrey J M Parker; Colette M B Griffin; Alan J Thompson; David H Miller Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Fidel Alfaro-Almagro; Mark Jenkinson; Neal K Bangerter; Jesper L R Andersson; Ludovica Griffanti; Gwenaëlle Douaud; Stamatios N Sotiropoulos; Saad Jbabdi; Moises Hernandez-Fernandez; Emmanuel Vallee; Diego Vidaurre; Matthew Webster; Paul McCarthy; Christopher Rorden; Alessandro Daducci; Daniel C Alexander; Hui Zhang; Iulius Dragonu; Paul M Matthews; Karla L Miller; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 6.556