From Dose Reduction to Contrast Maximization
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate a deep learning method designed to increase the contrast-to-noise ratio in contrast-enhanced gradient echo T1-weighted brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisitions. The processed images are quantitatively evaluated in terms of lesion detection performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 250 multiparametric brain MRIs, acquired between November 2019 and March 2021 at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus (Villejuif, France), were considered for inclusion in this retrospective monocentric study. Independent training (107 cases; age, 55 ± 14 years; 58 women) and test (79 cases; age, 59 ± 14 years; 41 women) samples were defined. Patients had glioma, brain metastasis, meningioma, or no enhancing lesion. Gradient echo and turbo spin echo with variable flip angles postcontrast T1 sequences were acquired in all cases. For the cases that formed the training sample, "low-dose" postcontrast gradient echo T1 images using 0.025 mmol/kg injections of contrast agent were also acquired. A deep neural network was trained to synthetically enhance the low-dose T1 acquisitions, taking standard-dose T1 MRI as reference. Once trained, the contrast enhancement network was used to process the test gradient echo T1 images. A read was then performed by 2 experienced neuroradiologists to evaluate the original and processed T1 MRI sequences in terms of contrast enhancement and lesion detection performance, taking the turbo spin echo sequences as reference. RESULTS: The processed images were superior to the original gradient echo and reference turbo spin echo T1 sequences in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio (44.5 vs 9.1 and 16.8; P < 0.001), lesion-to-brain ratio (1.66 vs 1.31 and 1.44; P < 0.001), and contrast enhancement percentage (112.4% vs 85.6% and 92.2%; P < 0.001) for cases with enhancing lesions. The overall image quality of processed T1 was preferred by both readers (graded 3.4/4 on average vs 2.7/4; P < 0.001). Finally, the proposed processing improved the average sensitivity of gradient echo T1 MRI from 88% to 96% for lesions larger than 10 mm ( P = 0.008), whereas no difference was found in terms of the false detection rate (0.02 per case in both cases; P > 0.99). The same effect was observed when considering all lesions larger than 5 mm: sensitivity increased from 70% to 85% ( P < 0.001), whereas false detection rates remained similar (0.04 vs 0.06 per case; P = 0.48). With all lesions included regardless of their size, sensitivities were 59% and 75% for original and processed T1 images, respectively ( P < 0.001), and the corresponding false detection rates were 0.05 and 0.14 per case, respectively ( P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: The proposed deep learning method successfully amplified the beneficial effects of contrast agent injection on gradient echo T1 image quality, contrast level, and lesion detection performance. In particular, the sensitivity of the MRI sequence was improved by up to 16%, whereas the false detection rate remained similar.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».