Artificial T1-Weighted Postcontrast Brain MRI: A Deep Learning Method for Contrast Signal Extraction.

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Investigative Radiology Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1097/RLI.0000000000001107
Robert Haase, Thomas Pinetz, Erich Kobler, Zeynep Bendella, Christian Gronemann, Daniel Paech, Alexander Radbruch, Alexander Effland, Katerina Deike
{"title":"Artificial T1-Weighted Postcontrast Brain MRI: A Deep Learning Method for Contrast Signal Extraction.","authors":"Robert Haase, Thomas Pinetz, Erich Kobler, Zeynep Bendella, Christian Gronemann, Daniel Paech, Alexander Radbruch, Alexander Effland, Katerina Deike","doi":"10.1097/RLI.0000000000001107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Reducing gadolinium-based contrast agents to lower costs, the environmental impact of gadolinium-containing wastewater, and patient exposure is still an unresolved issue. Published methods have never been compared. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of 2 reimplemented state-of-the-art deep learning methods (settings A and B) and a proposed method for contrast signal extraction (setting C) to synthesize artificial T1-weighted full-dose images from corresponding noncontrast and low-dose images.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective study, 213 participants received magnetic resonance imaging of the brain between August and October 2021 including low-dose (0.02 mmol/kg) and full-dose images (0.1 mmol/kg). Fifty participants were randomly set aside as test set before training (mean age ± SD, 52.6 ± 15.3 years; 30 men). Artificial and true full-dose images were compared using a reader-based study. Two readers noted all false-positive lesions and scored the overall interchangeability in regard to the clinical conclusion. Using a 5-point Likert scale (0 being the worst), they scored the contrast enhancement of each lesion and its conformity to the respective reference in the true image.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average counts of false-positives per participant were 0.33 ± 0.93, 0.07 ± 0.33, and 0.05 ± 0.22 for settings A-C, respectively. Setting C showed a significantly higher proportion of scans scored as fully or mostly interchangeable (70/100) than settings A (40/100, P < 0.001) and B (57/100, P < 0.001), and generated the smallest mean enhancement reduction of scored lesions (-0.50 ± 0.55) compared with the true images (setting A: -1.10 ± 0.98; setting B: -0.91 ± 0.67, both P < 0.001). The average scores of conformity of the lesion were 1.75 ± 1.07, 2.19 ± 1.04, and 2.48 ± 0.91 for settings A-C, respectively, with significant differences among all settings (all P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proposed method for contrast signal extraction showed significant improvements in synthesizing postcontrast images. A relevant proportion of images showing inadequate interchangeability with the reference remains at this dosage.</p>","PeriodicalId":14486,"journal":{"name":"Investigative Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investigative Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000001107","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Reducing gadolinium-based contrast agents to lower costs, the environmental impact of gadolinium-containing wastewater, and patient exposure is still an unresolved issue. Published methods have never been compared. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of 2 reimplemented state-of-the-art deep learning methods (settings A and B) and a proposed method for contrast signal extraction (setting C) to synthesize artificial T1-weighted full-dose images from corresponding noncontrast and low-dose images.

Materials and methods: In this prospective study, 213 participants received magnetic resonance imaging of the brain between August and October 2021 including low-dose (0.02 mmol/kg) and full-dose images (0.1 mmol/kg). Fifty participants were randomly set aside as test set before training (mean age ± SD, 52.6 ± 15.3 years; 30 men). Artificial and true full-dose images were compared using a reader-based study. Two readers noted all false-positive lesions and scored the overall interchangeability in regard to the clinical conclusion. Using a 5-point Likert scale (0 being the worst), they scored the contrast enhancement of each lesion and its conformity to the respective reference in the true image.

Results: The average counts of false-positives per participant were 0.33 ± 0.93, 0.07 ± 0.33, and 0.05 ± 0.22 for settings A-C, respectively. Setting C showed a significantly higher proportion of scans scored as fully or mostly interchangeable (70/100) than settings A (40/100, P < 0.001) and B (57/100, P < 0.001), and generated the smallest mean enhancement reduction of scored lesions (-0.50 ± 0.55) compared with the true images (setting A: -1.10 ± 0.98; setting B: -0.91 ± 0.67, both P < 0.001). The average scores of conformity of the lesion were 1.75 ± 1.07, 2.19 ± 1.04, and 2.48 ± 0.91 for settings A-C, respectively, with significant differences among all settings (all P < 0.001).

Conclusions: The proposed method for contrast signal extraction showed significant improvements in synthesizing postcontrast images. A relevant proportion of images showing inadequate interchangeability with the reference remains at this dosage.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工 T1 加权对比后脑 MRI:对比度信号提取的深度学习方法。
目的:减少钆基造影剂以降低成本、减少含钆废水对环境的影响以及减少患者接触钆的机会仍是一个悬而未决的问题。已公布的方法从未进行过比较。本研究的目的是比较两种重新实施的最先进深度学习方法(设置 A 和 B)和一种拟议的对比度信号提取方法(设置 C)的性能,以便从相应的非对比度和低剂量图像中合成人工 T1 加权全剂量图像:在这项前瞻性研究中,213 名参与者在 2021 年 8 月至 10 月期间接受了脑部磁共振成像,包括低剂量(0.02 毫摩尔/千克)和全剂量(0.1 毫摩尔/千克)图像。在训练前随机抽取 50 名参与者作为测试组(平均年龄(± SD):52.6±15.3 岁;男性 30 名)。人工图像和真实的全剂量图像通过基于阅读器的研究进行比较。两名读者注意到所有假阳性病变,并根据临床结论对整体互换性进行评分。他们使用 5 分李克特量表(0 为最差),对每个病灶的对比度增强情况及其与真实图像中相应参照物的一致性进行评分:设置 A-C 的每位参与者的平均假阳性计数分别为 0.33 ± 0.93、0.07 ± 0.33 和 0.05 ± 0.22。与真实图像(设置 A:-1.10 ± 0.98;设置 B:-0.91 ± 0.67,均 P <0.001)相比,设置 C 显示的完全或大部分可互换的扫描比例(70/100)明显高于设置 A(40/100,P <0.001)和设置 B(57/100,P <0.001),并且产生的平均增强降低(-0.50 ± 0.55)最小。设置 A-C 的病变符合性平均分分别为 1.75 ± 1.07、2.19 ± 1.04 和 2.48 ± 0.91,所有设置之间差异显著(均 P < 0.001):结论:所提出的对比度信号提取方法在合成对比后图像方面有明显改善。结论:拟议的对比度信号提取方法在合成对比后图像方面有明显改善,但仍有一定比例的图像显示与参照物的互换性不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Investigative Radiology
Investigative Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
16.40%
发文量
188
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Investigative Radiology publishes original, peer-reviewed reports on clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, and related modalities. Emphasis is on early and timely publication. Primarily research-oriented, the journal also includes a wide variety of features of interest to clinical radiologists.
期刊最新文献
Deep Learning Reconstructed New-Generation 0.55 T MRI of the Knee-A Prospective Comparison With Conventional 3 T MRI. Free-Breathing High-Resolution, Swap-Free, and Motion-Corrected Water/Fat Separation in Pediatric Abdominal MRI. Relationship of Dose and Signal Enhancement Properties of Gadoquatrane, a New Tetrameric, Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent, Compared With Gadobutrol: A Randomized Crossover Study in Healthy Adults. Metabolic MRI With Hyperpolarized 13 C-Pyruvate for Early Detection of Fibrogenic Kidney Metabolism. Dedicated Photon-Counting CT for Detection and Classification of Microcalcifications: An Intraindividual Comparison With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1