Literature DB >> 30197842

Image Quality Evaluation in Clinical Research: A Case Study on Brain and Cardiac MRI Images in Multi-Center Clinical Trials.

Michael Osadebey1, Marius Pedersen2, Douglas Arnold3, Katrina Wendel-Mitoraj4.   

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system images are important components in the development of drugs because it can reveal the underlying pathology in diseases. Unfortunately, the processes of image acquisition, storage, transmission, processing, and analysis can influence image quality with the risk of compromising the reliability of MRI-based data. Therefore, it is necessary to monitor image quality throughout the different stages of the imaging workflow. This report describes a new approach to evaluate the quality of an MRI slice in multi-center clinical trials. The design philosophy assumes that an MRI slice, such as all natural images, possess statistical properties that can describe different levels of contrast degradation. A unique set of pixel configuration is assigned to each possible level of contrast-distorted MRI slice. Invocation of the central limit theorem results in two separate Gaussian distributions. The central limit theorem says that the mean and standard deviation of pixel configuration assigned to each possible level of contrast degradation will follow a normal distribution. The mean of each normal distribution corresponds to the mean and standard deviation of the underlying ideal image. Quality prediction processes for a test image can be summarized into four steps. The first step extracts local contrast feature image from the test image. The second step computes the mean and standard deviation of the feature image. The third step separately standardizes each normal distribution using the mean and standard deviation computed from the feature image. This gives two separate z-scores. The fourth step predicts the lightness contrast quality score and the texture contrast quality score from cumulative distribution function of the appropriate normal distribution. The proposed method was evaluated objectively on brain and cardiac MRI volume data using four different types and levels of degradation. The four types of degradation are Rician noise, circular blur, motion blur, and intensity nonuniformity also known as bias fields. Objective evaluation was validated using a proposed variation of difference of mean opinion scores. Results from performance evaluation show that the proposed method will be suitable to monitor and standardize image quality throughout the different stages of imaging workflow in large clinical trials. MATLAB implementation of the proposed objective quality evaluation method can be downloaded from (https://github.com/ezimic/Image-Quality-Evaluation).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); brain MRI; cardiac MRI; central limit theorem; image quality; labeling problem; lightness contrast and texture contrast; normal distribution

Year:  2018        PMID: 30197842      PMCID: PMC6126794          DOI: 10.1109/JTEHM.2018.2855213

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med        ISSN: 2168-2372            Impact factor:   3.316


  49 in total

1.  Noise measurement from magnitude MRI using local estimates of variance and skewness.

Authors:  Jeny Rajan; Dirk Poot; Jaber Juntu; Jan Sijbers
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Routine clinical brain MRI sequences for use at 3.0 Tesla.

Authors:  Hanzhang Lu; Lidia M Nagae-Poetscher; Xavier Golay; Doris Lin; Martin Pomper; Peter C M van Zijl
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  The evolving role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Michael B Stokes; Nitesh Nerlekar; Stuart Moir; Karen S Teo
Journal:  Aust Fam Physician       Date:  2016-10

4.  Towards Automatic Quantitative Quality Control for MRI.

Authors:  Carolyn B Lauzon; Brian C Caffo; Bennett A Landman
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2012-02-23

5.  ACCLAIM: A randomized trial of abatacept (CTLA4-Ig) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Samia J Khoury; James Rochon; Linna Ding; Margie Byron; Kristin Ryker; Patti Tosta; Wendy Gao; Mark S Freedman; Douglas L Arnold; Peter H Sayre; Dawn E Smilek
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 6.312

6.  Motion and morphometry in clinical and nonclinical populations.

Authors:  Heath R Pardoe; Rebecca Kucharsky Hiess; Ruben Kuzniecky
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Head motion during MRI acquisition reduces gray matter volume and thickness estimates.

Authors:  Martin Reuter; M Dylan Tisdall; Abid Qureshi; Randy L Buckner; André J W van der Kouwe; Bruce Fischl
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 8.  MRI in the evaluation of pediatric multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Brenda Banwell; Douglas L Arnold; Jan-Mendelt Tillema; Maria A Rocca; Massimo Filippi; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman; Robert Zivadinov; Maria Pia Sormani
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 9.910

9.  Manual Segmentation of MS Cortical Lesions Using MRI: A Comparison of 3 MRI Reading Protocols.

Authors:  J Maranzano; D A Rudko; D L Arnold; S Narayanan
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 3.825

10.  Automatic quality assessment in structural brain magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Bénédicte Mortamet; Matt A Bernstein; Clifford R Jack; Jeffrey L Gunter; Chadwick Ward; Paula J Britson; Reto Meuli; Jean-Philippe Thiran; Gunnar Krueger
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.668

View more
  2 in total

1.  Automated image quality evaluation of structural brain MRI using an ensemble of deep learning networks.

Authors:  Sheeba J Sujit; Ivan Coronado; Arash Kamali; Ponnada A Narayana; Refaat E Gabr
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  A Brief Survey on No-Reference Image Quality Assessment Methods for Magnetic Resonance Images.

Authors:  Igor Stępień; Mariusz Oszust
Journal:  J Imaging       Date:  2022-06-04
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.