Literature DB >> 34080720

Local perturbation responses and checkerboard tests: Characterization tools for nonlinear MRI methods.

Chin-Cheng Chan1,2, Justin P Haldar1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Modern methods for MR image reconstruction, denoising, and parameter mapping are becoming increasingly nonlinear, black-box, and at risk of "hallucination." These trends mean that traditional tools for judging confidence in an image (visual quality assessment, point-spread functions (PSFs), g-factor maps, etc.) are less helpful than before. This paper describes and evaluates an approach that can help with assessing confidence in images produced by arbitrary nonlinear methods. THEORY AND METHODS: We propose to characterize nonlinear methods by examining the images they produce before and after applying controlled perturbations to the measured data. This results in functions known as local perturbation responses (LPRs) that can provide useful insight into sensitivity, spatial resolution, and aliasing characteristics. LPRs can be viewed as generalizations of classical PSFs, and are are very flexible-they can be applied to arbitary nonlinear methods and arbitrary datasets across a range of different reconstruction, denoising, and parameter mapping applications. Importantly, LPRs do not require a ground truth image.
RESULTS: Impulse-based and checkerboard-pattern LPRs are demonstrated in image reconstruction and denoising scenarios. We observe that these LPRs provide insights into spatial resolution, signal leakage, and aliasing that are not available with other methods. We also observe that popular reference-based image quality metrics (eg, mean-squared error and structural similarity) do not always correlate with good LPR characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: LPRs are a useful tool that can be used to characterize and assess confidence in nonlinear MR methods, and provide insights that are distinct from and complementary to existing quality assessments.
© 2021 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  denoising; image reconstruction; local perturbation responses; point-spread functions; spatial resolution analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34080720      PMCID: PMC8880254          DOI: 10.1002/mrm.28828

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   3.737


  42 in total

1.  Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA).

Authors:  Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  Analysis of Resolution and Noise Properties of Nonquadratically Regularized Image Reconstruction Methods for PET.

Authors:  Sangtae Ahn; Richard M Leahy
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Highly undersampled magnetic resonance image reconstruction via homotopic l(0) -minimization.

Authors:  Joshua Trzasko; Armando Manduca
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 10.048

4.  A majorize-minimize framework for Rician and non-central chi MR images.

Authors:  Divya Varadarajan; Justin P Haldar
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  THE FOURIER RADIAL ERROR SPECTRUM PLOT: A MORE NUANCED QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION QUALITY.

Authors:  Tae Hyung Kim; Justin P Haldar
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging       Date:  2018-05-24

6.  Signal-to-noise ratio-enhancing joint reconstruction for improved diffusion imaging of mouse spinal cord white matter injury.

Authors:  Joong Hee Kim; Sheng-Kwei Song; Justin P Haldar
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2015-03-30       Impact factor: 4.668

7.  Advancing machine learning for MR image reconstruction with an open competition: Overview of the 2019 fastMRI challenge.

Authors:  Florian Knoll; Tullie Murrell; Anuroop Sriram; Nafissa Yakubova; Jure Zbontar; Michael Rabbat; Aaron Defazio; Matthew J Muckley; Daniel K Sodickson; C Lawrence Zitnick; Michael P Recht
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2020-06-07       Impact factor: 4.668

8.  Off-the-Grid Recovery of Piecewise Constant Images from Few Fourier Samples.

Authors:  Greg Ongie; Mathews Jacob
Journal:  SIAM J Imaging Sci       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.867

9.  Low-rank modeling of local k-space neighborhoods (LORAKS) for constrained MRI.

Authors:  Justin P Haldar
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 10.048

10.  Magnetic resonance fingerprinting.

Authors:  Dan Ma; Vikas Gulani; Nicole Seiberlich; Kecheng Liu; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Jeffrey L Duerk; Mark A Griswold
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  2 in total

1.  Stabilizing deep tomographic reconstruction: Part A. Hybrid framework and experimental results.

Authors:  Weiwen Wu; Dianlin Hu; Wenxiang Cong; Hongming Shan; Shaoyu Wang; Chuang Niu; Pingkun Yan; Hengyong Yu; Varut Vardhanabhuti; Ge Wang
Journal:  Patterns (N Y)       Date:  2022-04-06

2.  SNR Enhancement for Multi-TE MRSI Using Joint Low-Dimensional Model and Spatial Constraints.

Authors:  Yahang Li; Zepeng Wang; Fan Lam
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 4.756

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.