并行磁共振成像重建开源网络的鲁棒性数值和临床评估。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-28 DOI:10.2463/mrms.mp.2023-0031
Naoto Fujita, Suguru Yokosawa, Toru Shirai, Yasuhiko Terada
{"title":"并行磁共振成像重建开源网络的鲁棒性数值和临床评估。","authors":"Naoto Fujita, Suguru Yokosawa, Toru Shirai, Yasuhiko Terada","doi":"10.2463/mrms.mp.2023-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Deep neural networks (DNNs) for MRI reconstruction often require large datasets for training. Still, in clinical settings, the domains of datasets are diverse, and how robust DNNs are to domain differences between training and testing datasets has been an open question. Here, we numerically and clinically evaluate the generalization of the reconstruction networks across various domains under clinically practical conditions and provide practical guidance on what points to consider when selecting models for clinical application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compare the reconstruction performance between four network models: U-Net, the deep cascade of convolutional neural networks (DC-CNNs), Hybrid Cascade, and variational network (VarNet). We used the public multicoil dataset fastMRI for training and testing and performed a single-domain test, where the domains of the dataset used for training and testing were the same, and cross-domain tests, where the source and target domains were different. We conducted a single-domain test (Experiment 1) and cross-domain tests (Experiments 2-4), focusing on six factors (the number of images, sampling pattern, acceleration factor, noise level, contrast, and anatomical structure) both numerically and clinically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>U-Net had lower performance than the three model-based networks and was less robust to domain shifts between training and testing datasets. VarNet had the highest performance and robustness among the three model-based networks, followed by Hybrid Cascade and DC-CNN. Especially, VarNet showed high performance even with a limited number of training images (200 images/10 cases). U-Net was more robust to domain shifts concerning noise level than the other model-based networks. Hybrid Cascade showed slightly better performance and robustness than DC-CNN, except for robustness to noise-level domain shifts. The results of the clinical evaluations generally agreed with the results of the quantitative metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study, we numerically and clinically evaluated the robustness of the publicly available networks using the multicoil data. Therefore, this study provided practical guidance for clinical applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":18119,"journal":{"name":"Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"460-478"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447470/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Numerical and Clinical Evaluation of the Robustness of Open-source Networks for Parallel MR Imaging Reconstruction.\",\"authors\":\"Naoto Fujita, Suguru Yokosawa, Toru Shirai, Yasuhiko Terada\",\"doi\":\"10.2463/mrms.mp.2023-0031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Deep neural networks (DNNs) for MRI reconstruction often require large datasets for training. Still, in clinical settings, the domains of datasets are diverse, and how robust DNNs are to domain differences between training and testing datasets has been an open question. Here, we numerically and clinically evaluate the generalization of the reconstruction networks across various domains under clinically practical conditions and provide practical guidance on what points to consider when selecting models for clinical application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compare the reconstruction performance between four network models: U-Net, the deep cascade of convolutional neural networks (DC-CNNs), Hybrid Cascade, and variational network (VarNet). We used the public multicoil dataset fastMRI for training and testing and performed a single-domain test, where the domains of the dataset used for training and testing were the same, and cross-domain tests, where the source and target domains were different. We conducted a single-domain test (Experiment 1) and cross-domain tests (Experiments 2-4), focusing on six factors (the number of images, sampling pattern, acceleration factor, noise level, contrast, and anatomical structure) both numerically and clinically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>U-Net had lower performance than the three model-based networks and was less robust to domain shifts between training and testing datasets. VarNet had the highest performance and robustness among the three model-based networks, followed by Hybrid Cascade and DC-CNN. Especially, VarNet showed high performance even with a limited number of training images (200 images/10 cases). U-Net was more robust to domain shifts concerning noise level than the other model-based networks. Hybrid Cascade showed slightly better performance and robustness than DC-CNN, except for robustness to noise-level domain shifts. The results of the clinical evaluations generally agreed with the results of the quantitative metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study, we numerically and clinically evaluated the robustness of the publicly available networks using the multicoil data. Therefore, this study provided practical guidance for clinical applications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18119,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"460-478\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447470/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2023-0031\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2023-0031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:用于磁共振成像重建的深度神经网络(DNN)通常需要大型数据集进行训练。然而,在临床环境中,数据集的领域多种多样,DNN 对训练数据集和测试数据集之间的领域差异的鲁棒性如何一直是个未决问题。在此,我们从数值和临床角度评估了重建网络在临床实际条件下对不同领域的泛化能力,并就临床应用中选择模型时应考虑的要点提供了实际指导:我们比较了四种网络模型的重建性能:方法:我们比较了四种网络模型的重建性能:U-Net、深度级联卷积神经网络(DC-CNNs)、混合级联和变异网络(VarNet)。我们使用公开的多卷积数据集 fastMRI 进行训练和测试,并进行了单域测试(用于训练和测试的数据集域相同)和跨域测试(源域和目标域不同)。我们进行了单域测试(实验 1)和跨域测试(实验 2-4),重点关注六个因素(图像数量、采样模式、加速因子、噪声水平、对比度和解剖结构)的数值和临床表现:结果:U-Net 的性能低于三个基于模型的网络,而且对训练和测试数据集之间的领域转移的鲁棒性较差。在三种基于模型的网络中,VarNet 的性能和鲁棒性最高,其次是混合级联和 DC-CNN。特别是,VarNet 即使在训练图像数量有限(200 张图像/10 个案例)的情况下也表现出了很高的性能。与其他基于模型的网络相比,U-Net 对噪声水平的域偏移具有更强的鲁棒性。混合级联的性能和鲁棒性略优于 DC-CNN,但对噪声级域偏移的鲁棒性除外。临床评估结果与定量指标结果基本一致:在这项研究中,我们利用多扰数据对公开网络的鲁棒性进行了数值和临床评估。因此,本研究为临床应用提供了实际指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Numerical and Clinical Evaluation of the Robustness of Open-source Networks for Parallel MR Imaging Reconstruction.

Purpose: Deep neural networks (DNNs) for MRI reconstruction often require large datasets for training. Still, in clinical settings, the domains of datasets are diverse, and how robust DNNs are to domain differences between training and testing datasets has been an open question. Here, we numerically and clinically evaluate the generalization of the reconstruction networks across various domains under clinically practical conditions and provide practical guidance on what points to consider when selecting models for clinical application.

Methods: We compare the reconstruction performance between four network models: U-Net, the deep cascade of convolutional neural networks (DC-CNNs), Hybrid Cascade, and variational network (VarNet). We used the public multicoil dataset fastMRI for training and testing and performed a single-domain test, where the domains of the dataset used for training and testing were the same, and cross-domain tests, where the source and target domains were different. We conducted a single-domain test (Experiment 1) and cross-domain tests (Experiments 2-4), focusing on six factors (the number of images, sampling pattern, acceleration factor, noise level, contrast, and anatomical structure) both numerically and clinically.

Results: U-Net had lower performance than the three model-based networks and was less robust to domain shifts between training and testing datasets. VarNet had the highest performance and robustness among the three model-based networks, followed by Hybrid Cascade and DC-CNN. Especially, VarNet showed high performance even with a limited number of training images (200 images/10 cases). U-Net was more robust to domain shifts concerning noise level than the other model-based networks. Hybrid Cascade showed slightly better performance and robustness than DC-CNN, except for robustness to noise-level domain shifts. The results of the clinical evaluations generally agreed with the results of the quantitative metrics.

Conclusion: In this study, we numerically and clinically evaluated the robustness of the publicly available networks using the multicoil data. Therefore, this study provided practical guidance for clinical applications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences
Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences (MRMS or Magn Reson Med Sci) is an international journal pursuing the publication of original articles contributing to the progress of magnetic resonance in the field of biomedical sciences including technical developments and clinical applications. MRMS is an official journal of the Japanese Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (JSMRM).
期刊最新文献
Evaluating Biliary Malignancy with Measured and Calculated Ultra-high b-value Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging at 3T. Diagnostic Utility of an Adjusted DWI Lexicon Using Multiple b-values to Evaluate Breast Lesions in Combination with BI-RADS. Blockage of CSF Outflow in Rats after Deep Cervical Lymph Node Ligation Observed Using Gd-based MR Imaging. A Versatile MR Elastography Research Tool with a Modified Motion Signal-to-noise Ratio Approach. Comparison of Slab and Pencil Beam Labeling in Spin-labeled MR Imaging for Pancreatic Juice Flow Visualization.
×
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