Literature DB >> 34192682

Optimizing constrained reconstruction in magnetic resonance imaging for signal detection.

Angel R Pineda1, Hope Miedema1, Sajan Goud Lingala2, Krishna S Nayak3.   

Abstract

Constrained reconstruction in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows the use of prior information through constraints to improve reconstructed images. These constraints often take the form of regularization terms in the objective function used for reconstruction. Constrained reconstruction leads to images which appear to have fewer artifacts than reconstructions without constraints but because the methods are typically nonlinear, the reconstructed images have artifacts whose structure is hard to predict. In this work, we compared different methods of optimizing the regularization parameter using a total variation (TV) constraint in the spatial domain and sparsity in the wavelet domain for one-dimensional (2.56×) undersampling using variable density undersampling. We compared the mean squared error (MSE), structural similarity (SSIM), L-curve and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) using a linear discriminant for detecting a small and a large signal. We used a signal-known-exactly task with varying backgrounds in a simulation where the anatomical variation was the major source of clutter for the detection task. Our results show that the AUC dependence on regularization parameters varies with the imaging task (i.e. the signal being detected). The choice of regularization parameters for MSE, SSIM, L-curve and AUC were similar. We also found that a model-based reconstruction including TV and wavelet sparsity did slightly better in terms of AUC than just enforcing data consistency but using these constraints resulted in much better MSE and SSIM. These results suggest that the increased performance in MSE and SSIM over-estimate the improvement in detection performance for the tasks in this paper. The MSE and SSIM metrics show a big difference in performance where the difference in AUC is small. To our knowledge, this is the first time that signal detection with varying backgrounds has been used to optimize constrained reconstruction in MRI.
© 2021 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; constrained reconstruction; model observers; task performance

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34192682      PMCID: PMC9169904          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac1021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   4.174


  10 in total

1.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds.

Authors:  F O Bochud; C K Abbey; M P Eckstein
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.129

2.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.

Authors:  Zhou Wang; Alan Conrad Bovik; Hamid Rahim Sheikh; Eero P Simoncelli
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 10.856

3.  Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms.

Authors:  Robert M Gagne; Brandon D Gallas; Kyle J Myers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Spatial resolution properties of penalized-likelihood image reconstruction: space-invariant tomographs.

Authors:  J A Fessler; W L Rogers
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 10.856

5.  Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability.

Authors:  H H Barrett
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 2.129

6.  Resolution evaluation of MR images reconstructed by iterative thresholding algorithms for compressed sensing.

Authors:  Tobias Wech; Daniel Stab; Jan Carl Budich; Andre Fischer; Johannes Tran-Gia; Dietbert Hahn; Herbert Kostler
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  High-resolution whole-brain DCE-MRI using constrained reconstruction: Prospective clinical evaluation in brain tumor patients.

Authors:  Yi Guo; R Marc Lebel; Yinghua Zhu; Sajan Goud Lingala; Mark S Shiroishi; Meng Law; Krishna Nayak
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  A comparison of resampling schemes for estimating model observer performance with small ensembles.

Authors:  Fatma E A Elshahaby; Abhinav K Jha; Michael Ghaly; Eric C Frey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Sparsity and low-contrast object detectability.

Authors:  Joshua D Trzasko; Zhonghao Bao; Armando Manduca; Kiaran P McGee; Matt A Bernstein
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 4.668

10.  Compressive sensing in medical imaging.

Authors:  Christian G Graff; Emil Y Sidky
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 1.980

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.