From Dose Reduction to Contrast Maximization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".