| Literature DB >> 32147643 |
Motohide Kawamura1, Daiki Tamada1, Satoshi Funayama1, Marie-Luise Kromrey1, Shintaro Ichikawa1, Hiroshi Onishi1, Utaroh Motosugi1.
Abstract
To accelerate high-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging with a multi-shot echo-planar sequence, we propose an approach based on reduced averaging and deep learning. Denoising convolutional neural networks can reduce amplified noise without requiring extensive averaging, enabling shorter scan times and high image quality. The preliminary experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed denoising method over state-of-the-art methods such as the widely used block-matching and 3D filtering.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; diffusion weighted imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; multi-shot echo-planar imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32147643 PMCID: PMC7952209 DOI: 10.2463/mrms.tn.2019-0081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Magn Reson Med Sci ISSN: 1347-3182 Impact factor: 2.471
Fig. 1Schematic of proposed deep-learning-based acceleration for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). The conventional approach averages several signals to improve the low signal-to-noise ratio of high-resolution diffusion-weighted images. We replace this time-consuming process with denoising based on deep neural network to notably reduce acquisition time.
Fig. 2Architecture of proposed deep convolutional neural network.
Peak SNRs of diffusion-weighted images compared with the ground truth. The peak SNRs of pre-denoising images are also listed
| Method | Peak SNR (dB) |
|---|---|
| Pre-denoising | 31.33 (1.63) |
| Gaussian | 34.23 (1.48) |
| TV | 34.59 (1.50) |
| BM3D | 34.95 (1.54) |
| Proposed | 36.06 (1.54) |
Standard deviations are enclosed in parentheses. SNR, signal-to-noise ratio; TV, total variation; BM3D, block-matching and 3D filtering.
Fig. 3Pre-denoising, denoised, and ground truth diffusion-weighted images. (A) Pre-denoising image. Images denoised using (B) Gaussian filter, (C) total variation (TV) denoising, (D) block-matching and 3D filtering (BM3D), and (E) the proposed method. (F) Ground truth images. (G–I) Magnified images of the solid boxes in (A–F), respectively.
Comparison among image pairs from reader study
| Pair ( | Reader 1 | Reader 2 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No preference | No preference | |||||||||
| TV, BM3D | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 |
| TV, proposed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 |
| TV, ground truth | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 |
| BM3D, proposed | 0 | 1 | 5 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 2 |
| BM3D, ground truth | 0 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 0 |
| Proposed, ground truth | 0 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 10 | 0 |
TV, total variation; BM3D, block-matching and 3D filtering.
Fig. 4Estimates of variable μ for cumulative logit model fitted to paired comparison. μ represents image quality of the corresponding method or ground truth. Larger μ indicates better quality. Estimated asymptotic standard errors are denoted by error bars. TV, total variation; BM3D, block-matching and 3D filtering. The significance stars mean: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.