PURPOSE: There is an increasing availability of large imaging cohorts [such as through The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA)] for computational model development and imaging research. To ensure development of generalizable computerized models, there is a need to quickly determine relative quality differences in these cohorts, especially when considering MRI datasets which can exhibit wide variations in image appearance. The purpose of this study is to present a quantitative quality control tool, MRQy, to help interrogate MR imaging datasets for: (a) site- or scanner-specific variations in image resolution or image contrast, and (b) imaging artifacts such as noise or inhomogeneity; which need correction prior to model development. METHODS: Unlike existing imaging quality control tools, MRQy has been generalized to work with images from any body region to efficiently extract a series of quality measures (e.g., noise ratios, variation metrics) and MR image metadata (e.g., voxel resolution and image dimensions). MRQy also offers a specialized HTML5-based front-end designed for real-time filtering and trend visualization of quality measures. RESULTS: MRQy was used to evaluate (a) n = 133 brain MRIs from TCIA (7 sites) and (b) n = 104 rectal MRIs (3 local sites). MRQy measures revealed significant site-specific variations in both cohorts, indicating potential batch effects. Before processing, MRQy measures could be used to identify each of the seven sites within the TCIA cohort with 87.5%, 86.4%, 90%, 93%, 90%, 60%, and 92.9% accuracy and the three sites within the rectal cohort with 91%, 82.8%, and 88.9% accuracy using unsupervised clustering. After processing, none of the sites could be distinctively clustered via MRQy measures in either cohort; suggesting that batch effects had been largely accounted for. Marked differences in specific MRQy measures were also able to identify outlier MRI datasets that needed to be corrected for common acquisition artifacts. CONCLUSIONS: MRQy is designed to be a standalone, unsupervised tool that can be efficiently run on a standard desktop computer. It has been made freely accessible and open-source at http://github.com/ccipd/MRQy for community use and feedback.
PURPOSE: There is an increasing availability of large imaging cohorts [such as through The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA)] for computational model development and imaging research. To ensure development of generalizable computerized models, there is a need to quickly determine relative quality differences in these cohorts, especially when considering MRI datasets which can exhibit wide variations in image appearance. The purpose of this study is to present a quantitative quality control tool, MRQy, to help interrogate MR imaging datasets for: (a) site- or scanner-specific variations in image resolution or image contrast, and (b) imaging artifacts such as noise or inhomogeneity; which need correction prior to model development. METHODS: Unlike existing imaging quality control tools, MRQy has been generalized to work with images from any body region to efficiently extract a series of quality measures (e.g., noise ratios, variation metrics) and MR image metadata (e.g., voxel resolution and image dimensions). MRQy also offers a specialized HTML5-based front-end designed for real-time filtering and trend visualization of quality measures. RESULTS: MRQy was used to evaluate (a) n = 133 brain MRIs from TCIA (7 sites) and (b) n = 104 rectal MRIs (3 local sites). MRQy measures revealed significant site-specific variations in both cohorts, indicating potential batch effects. Before processing, MRQy measures could be used to identify each of the seven sites within the TCIA cohort with 87.5%, 86.4%, 90%, 93%, 90%, 60%, and 92.9% accuracy and the three sites within the rectal cohort with 91%, 82.8%, and 88.9% accuracy using unsupervised clustering. After processing, none of the sites could be distinctively clustered via MRQy measures in either cohort; suggesting that batch effects had been largely accounted for. Marked differences in specific MRQy measures were also able to identify outlier MRI datasets that needed to be corrected for common acquisition artifacts. CONCLUSIONS: MRQy is designed to be a standalone, unsupervised tool that can be efficiently run on a standard desktop computer. It has been made freely accessible and open-source at http://github.com/ccipd/MRQy for community use and feedback.
Authors: Eduard T Klapwijk; Ferdi van de Kamp; Mara van der Meulen; Sabine Peters; Lara M Wierenga Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Niha Beig; Kaustav Bera; Prateek Prasanna; Jacob Antunes; Ramon Correa; Salendra Singh; Anas Saeed Bamashmos; Marwa Ismail; Nathaniel Braman; Ruchika Verma; Virginia B Hill; Volodymyr Statsevych; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Vinay Varadan; Anant Madabhushi; Pallavi Tiwari Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Spyridon Bakas; Hamed Akbari; Aristeidis Sotiras; Michel Bilello; Martin Rozycki; Justin S Kirby; John B Freymann; Keyvan Farahani; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Sci Data Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 6.444
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: Oscar Esteban; Ross W Blair; Dylan M Nielson; Jan C Varada; Sean Marrett; Adam G Thomas; Russell A Poldrack; Krzysztof J Gorgolewski Journal: Sci Data Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Christoph Vogelbacher; Miriam H A Bopp; Verena Schuster; Peer Herholz; Andreas Jansen; Jens Sommer Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: D C Van Essen; K Ugurbil; E Auerbach; D Barch; T E J Behrens; R Bucholz; A Chang; L Chen; M Corbetta; S W Curtiss; S Della Penna; D Feinberg; M F Glasser; N Harel; A C Heath; L Larson-Prior; D Marcus; G Michalareas; S Moeller; R Oostenveld; S E Petersen; F Prior; B L Schlaggar; S M Smith; A Z Snyder; J Xu; E Yacoub Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-02-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Jana G Delfino; Kalina V Jordanova; Megan E Poorman; Prathyush Chirra; Akshay S Chaudhari; Bettina Baessler; Jessica Winfield; Satish E Viswanath; Nandita M deSouza Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Evan D H Gates; Adrian Celaya; Dima Suki; Dawid Schellingerhout; David Fuentes Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Alex Vils; Marta Bogowicz; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Diem Vuong; Natalia Saltybaeva; Johannes Kraft; Hans-Georg Wirsching; Dorothee Gramatzki; Wolfgang Wick; Elisabeth Rushing; Guido Reifenberger; Matthias Guckenberger; Michael Weller; Nicolaus Andratschke Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 6.244