Kevin M Koch 1 , Mohammad Sherafati 1 , V Emre Arpinar 1 , Sampada Bhave 1 , Robin Ausman 1 , Andrew S Nencka 1 , R Marc Lebel 1 , Graeme McKinnon 1 , S Sivaram Kaushik 1 , Douglas Vierck 1 , Michael R Stetz 1 , Sujan Fernando 1 , Rajeev Mannem 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate two settings (noise reduction of 50% or 75%) of a deep learning (DL) reconstruction model relative to each other and to conventional MR image reconstructions on clinical orthopedic MRI datasets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 54 patients who underwent two-dimensional fast spin-echo MRI for hip (n = 22; mean age, 44 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; nine men) or shoulder (n = 32; mean age, 56 years ± 17; 17 men) conditions between March 2019 and June 2020. MR images were reconstructed with conventional methods and the vendor-provided and commercially available DL model applied with 50% and 75% noise reduction settings (DL 50 and DL 75, respectively). Quantitative analytics, including relative anatomic edge sharpness, relative signal-to-noise ratio (rSNR), and relative contrast-to-noise ratio (rCNR) were computed for each dataset. In addition, the image sets were randomized, blinded, and presented to three board-certified musculoskeletal radiologists for ranking based on overall image quality and diagnostic confidence. Statistical analysis was performed with a nonparametric hypothesis comparing derived quantitative metrics from each reconstruction approach. In addition, inter- and intrarater agreement analysis was performed on the radiologists' rankings. RESULTS: Both denoising settings of the DL reconstruction showed improved edge sharpness, rSNR, and rCNR relative to the conventional reconstructions. The reader rankings demonstrated strong agreement, with both DL reconstructions outperforming the conventional approach (Gwet agreement coefficient = 0.98). However, there was lower agreement between the readers on which DL reconstruction denoising setting produced higher-quality images (Gwet agreement coefficient = 0.31 for DL 50 and 0.35 for DL 75). CONCLUSION: The vendor-provided DL MRI reconstruction showed higher edge sharpness, rSNR, and rCNR in comparison with conventional methods; however, optimal levels of denoising may need to be further assessed.Keywords: MRI Reconstruction Method, Deep Learning, Image Analysis, Signal-to-Noise Ratio, MR-Imaging, Neural Networks, Hip, Shoulder, Physics, Observer Performance, Technology Assessment Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021. 2021 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate two settings (noise reduction of 50% or 75%) of a deep learning (DL) reconstruction model relative to each other and to conventional MR image reconstructions on clinical orthopedic MRI datasets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 54 patients who underwent two-dimensional fast spin-echo MRI for hip (n = 22; mean age, 44 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; nine men) or shoulder (n = 32; mean age, 56 years ± 17; 17 men) conditions between March 2019 and June 2020. MR images were reconstructed with conventional methods and the vendor-provided and commercially available DL model applied with 50% and 75% noise reduction settings (DL 50 and DL 75, respectively). Quantitative analytics, including relative anatomic edge sharpness, relative signal-to-noise ratio (rSNR), and relative contrast-to-noise ratio (rCNR) were computed for each dataset. In addition, the image sets were randomized, blinded, and presented to three board-certified musculoskeletal radiologists for ranking based on overall image quality and diagnostic confidence. Statistical analysis was performed with a nonparametric hypothesis comparing derived quantitative metrics from each reconstruction approach. In addition, inter- and intrarater agreement analysis was performed on the radiologists' rankings. RESULTS: Both denoising settings of the DL reconstruction showed improved edge sharpness, rSNR, and rCNR relative to the conventional reconstructions. The reader rankings demonstrated strong agreement, with both DL reconstructions outperforming the conventional approach (Gwet agreement coefficient = 0.98). However, there was lower agreement between the readers on which DL reconstruction denoising setting produced higher-quality images (Gwet agreement coefficient = 0.31 for DL 50 and 0.35 for DL 75). CONCLUSION: The vendor-provided DL MRI reconstruction showed higher edge sharpness, rSNR, and rCNR in comparison with conventional methods; however, optimal levels of denoising may need to be further assessed.Keywords: MRI Reconstruction Method, Deep Learning, Image Analysis, Signal-to-Noise Ratio, MR-Imaging, Neural Networks, Hip, Shoulder, Physics, Observer Performance, Technology Assessment Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021. 2021 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.
Entities: Chemical
Keywords:
Deep Learning; Hip; Image Analysis; MR-Imaging; MRI Reconstruction Method; Neural Networks; Observer Performance; Physics; Shoulder; Signal-to-Noise Ratio; Technology Assessment
Year: 2021
PMID： 34870214 PMCID： PMC8637471 DOI： 10.1148/ryai.2021200278
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Artif Intell ISSN： 2638-6100