Literature DB >> 32755384

Diagnostic Accuracy of Quantitative Multicontrast 5-Minute Knee MRI Using Prospective Artificial Intelligence Image Quality Enhancement.

Akshay S Chaudhari1, Murray J Grissom2, Zhongnan Fang3, Bragi Sveinsson4,5, Jin Hyung Lee6,7,8,9, Garry E Gold1,7,10, Brian A Hargreaves1,7,9, Kathryn J Stevens1,10.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Potential approaches for abbreviated knee MRI, including prospective acceleration with deep learning, have achieved limited clinical implementation. OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to evaluate the interreader agreement between conventional knee MRI and a 5-minute 3D quantitative double-echo steady-state (qDESS) sequence with automatic T2 mapping and deep learning super-resolutionaugmentation and to compare the diagnostic performance of the two methods regarding findings from arthroscopic surgery. METHODS. Fifty-one patients with knee pain underwent knee MRI that included an additional 3D qDESS sequence with automatic T2 mapping. Fourier interpolation was followed by prospective deep learning super resolution to enhance qDESS slice resolution twofold. A musculoskeletal radiologist and a radiology resident performed independent retrospective evaluations of articular cartilage, menisci, ligaments, bones, extensor mechanism, and synovium using conventional MRI. Following a 2-month washout period, readers reviewed qDESS images alone followed by qDESS with the automatic T2 maps. Interreader agreement between conventional MRI and qDESS was computed using percentage agreement and Cohen kappa. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional MRI, qDESS alone, and qDESS plus T2 mapping were compared with arthroscopic findings using exact McNemar tests. RESULTS. Conventional MRI and qDESS showed 92% agreement in evaluating all tissues. Kappa was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.81) across all imaging findings. In 43 patients who underwent arthroscopy, sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different (p = .23 to > .99) between conventional MRI (sensitivity, 58-93%; specificity, 27-87%) and qDESS alone (sensitivity, 54-90%; specificity, 23-91%) for cartilage, menisci, ligaments, and synovium. For grade 1 cartilage lesions, sensitivity and specificity were 33% and 56%, respectively, for conventional MRI; 23% and 53% for qDESS (p = .81); and 46% and 39% for qDESS with T2 mapping (p = .80). For grade 2A lesions, values were 27% and 53% for conventional MRI, 26% and 52% for qDESS (p = .02), and 58% and 40% for qDESS with T2 mapping (p < .001). CONCLUSION. The qDESS method prospectively augmented with deep learning showed strong interreader agreement with conventional knee MRI and near-equivalent diagnostic performance regarding arthroscopy. The ability of qDESS to automatically generate T2 maps increases sensitivity for cartilage abnormalities. CLINICAL IMPACT. Using prospective artificial intelligence to enhance qDESS image quality may facilitate an abbreviated knee MRI protocol while generating quantitative T2 maps.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; artificial intelligence; biomarkers; knee injuries; radiology

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32755384      PMCID: PMC8862596          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.24172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  30 in total

1.  Comparative accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in confirming clinically diagnosed patellar tendinopathy.

Authors:  Stuart J Warden; Zoltan S Kiss; Frank A Malara; Alistair B T Ooi; Jill L Cook; Kay M Crossley
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2007-01-29       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Fully Automated 10-Minute 3D CAIPIRINHA SPACE TSE MRI of the Knee in Adults: A Multicenter, Multireader, Multifield-Strength Validation Study.

Authors:  Filippo Del Grande; Marco Delcogliano; Riccardo Guglielmi; Esther Raithel; Steven E Stern; Derek F Papp; Christian Candrian; Jan Fritz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 6.016

3.  Low-Dose CT With a Residual Encoder-Decoder Convolutional Neural Network.

Authors:  Hu Chen; Yi Zhang; Mannudeep K Kalra; Feng Lin; Yang Chen; Peixi Liao; Jiliu Zhou; Ge Wang
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 10.048

4.  Combined 5-minute double-echo in steady-state with separated echoes and 2-minute proton-density-weighted 2D FSE sequence for comprehensive whole-joint knee MRI assessment.

Authors:  Akshay S Chaudhari; Kathryn J Stevens; Bragi Sveinsson; Jeff P Wood; Christopher F Beaulieu; Edwin H G Oei; Jarrett K Rosenberg; Feliks Kogan; Marcus T Alley; Garry E Gold; Brian A Hargreaves
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-12-23       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Deep learning enables reduced gadolinium dose for contrast-enhanced brain MRI.

Authors:  Enhao Gong; John M Pauly; Max Wintermark; Greg Zaharchuk
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Fast comprehensive single-sequence four-dimensional pediatric knee MRI with T2 shuffling.

Authors:  Shanshan Bao; Jonathan I Tamir; Jeffrey L Young; Umar Tariq; Martin Uecker; Peng Lai; Weitian Chen; Michael Lustig; Shreyas S Vasanawala
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Three-Dimensional CAIPIRINHA SPACE TSE for 5-Minute High-Resolution MRI of the Knee.

Authors:  Jan Fritz; Benjamin Fritz; Gaurav G Thawait; Heiko Meyer; Wesley D Gilson; Esther Raithel
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 6.016

8.  Super-resolution musculoskeletal MRI using deep learning.

Authors:  Akshay S Chaudhari; Zhongnan Fang; Feliks Kogan; Jeff Wood; Kathryn J Stevens; Eric K Gibbons; Jin Hyung Lee; Garry E Gold; Brian A Hargreaves
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Ultra-Low-Dose 18F-Florbetaben Amyloid PET Imaging Using Deep Learning with Multi-Contrast MRI Inputs.

Authors:  Kevin T Chen; Enhao Gong; Fabiola Bezerra de Carvalho Macruz; Junshen Xu; Athanasia Boumis; Mehdi Khalighi; Kathleen L Poston; Sharon J Sha; Michael D Greicius; Elizabeth Mormino; John M Pauly; Shyam Srinivas; Greg Zaharchuk
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 29.146

Review 10.  Prospective Deployment of Deep Learning in MRI: A Framework for Important Considerations, Challenges, and Recommendations for Best Practices.

Authors:  Akshay S Chaudhari; Christopher M Sandino; Elizabeth K Cole; David B Larson; Garry E Gold; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Matthew P Lungren; Brian A Hargreaves; Curtis P Langlotz
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 5.119

View more
  4 in total

1.  Identification and diagnosis of meniscus tear by magnetic resonance imaging using a deep learning model.

Authors:  Jie Li; Kun Qian; Jinyong Liu; Zhijun Huang; Yuchen Zhang; Guoqian Zhao; Huifen Wang; Meng Li; Xiaohan Liang; Fang Zhou; Xiuying Yu; Lan Li; Xingsong Wang; Xianfeng Yang; Qing Jiang
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2022-06-26       Impact factor: 4.889

2.  Deep learning-based quantitative estimation of lymphedema-induced fibrosis using three-dimensional computed tomography images.

Authors:  Kyo-In Koo; Chang Ho Hwang; Hyewon Son; Suwon Lee; Kwangsoo Kim
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Detection Method of Athlete Joint Injury Based on Deep Learning Model.

Authors:  Jianjia Liu; Xin Yang; Tiannan Liao; Yong Huang
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 4.  Imaging of Synovial Inflammation in Osteoarthritis, From the AJR Special Series on Inflammation.

Authors:  Jacob Thoenen; James W MacKay; Halston J C Sandford; Garry E Gold; Feliks Kogan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 3.959

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.