André Fischer1,2, Peng Lai3, and El-Sayed Ibrahim4
1GE Global Research Europe, Garching bei München, Germany, 2Cardiac Center of Excellence, GE Healthcare, Garching bei München, Germany, 3GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, CA, United States, 4GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, United States
Synopsis
Radial cardiac real-time
datasets are usually compromised by streaking artifacts. Truncated principal
component analysis (PCA) has been proposed to remove streaking and improve
apparent SNR of the images. However, a proper threshold for truncation of the
PCA has to be selected to maintain good temporal fidelity. This work proposes a
method for automatic truncation of the PCA and compares a soft against the
standard hard thresholding approach. Results indicate that the proposed method
in combination with soft thresholding offers reduced temporal blurring and
streaking artifacts while improving apparent SNR.
Purpose
Radial imaging employing
Golden Angle1 angle increments is a popular research topic due to
the high degree of flexibility in the reconstruction process after data
acquisition. This flexibility may improve, e.g., cardiac
real-time imaging in challenging situations where standard Cartesian cine sequences
fail. However, when switching from standard Cartesian to radial
sequences, usually streaking artifacts are a challenge. The origin of these
artifacts is manifold and minimizing these influences is of course important to
lower the artifact energy of these. Nonetheless, techniques to deal with
remaining streaking artifacts have been discussed in earlier publications2.
An interesting method in this context is the truncated principal component
analysis (PCA) or Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT)3,4. Especially when
the positions of the streaking artifacts change from temporal frame to frame,
the KLT can be very helpful to remove streaking artifacts while simultaneously
improving the apparent SNR of the dataset. A challenge in this context is the
proper selection of the truncation of the principal components (PC). If too
many PCs are discarded, a phenomenon similar to temporal blurring can be
observed. If too many PCs are maintained, streaking may still be too prominent.
We suggest using the L1 energy of the PC eigenvalues as an indicator
how many PCs to maintain. Furthermore, using a soft thresholding employing an
exponentially decaying function may be considered instead of hard thresholding of
the PCs. As we show, this method reduces temporal blurring, streaking artifacts,
and improves apparent SNR in the timeframes.Methods
A radial bSSFP sequence was
used to obtain data from a healthy volunteer on a 3.0T MRI scanner (MR750, GE
Healthcare, Waukesha/WI, USA). All subsequent data processing was performed in
Matlab (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA). After reconstruction of a real-time
dataset employing view sharing using a Tornado shaped temporal filter5
and subsequent iterative SENSE reconstruction6, these data were
considered as ground truth. Next, the data were subject to KLT. Hereby, a
regular hard thresholded KLT was compared to a soft thresholded KLT. Thresholding
was performed such that 99.00,99.25,99.50, or 99.75% of the original L1
energy of the PCs was maintained. Soft thresholding was performed using an
exponential decay function exp(-x/DPC) where x is the vector with
the PC eigenvalues and DPC is the decay constant and was set to 10%
of the number of timeframes (see example in Fig.1). The thresholded KLTs were
subtracted from the ground truth real-time dataset and visually compared.
Furthermore, the L1 norm of the absolute difference values between
the KLTs and ground truth were calculated and plotted against the chosen
threshold.Results
Fig. 2 and 3 compare the
different KLT-thresholding strategies for thresholds 99.00% and 99.50%. As can
be seen, for 99.00%, hard thresholding suffers from significantly reduced
temporal accuracy while the proposed soft thresholding performs better (see
yellow arrows). For 99.50%, there is almost no visual difference in the images.
However, when looking into the difference images to the ground truth,
advantages for soft thresholding can be seen. This impression is further
confirmed by comparing the resulting time-courses at a representative profile
through the heart (Fig. 4). Hard thresholding the PCs compromises the temporal fidelity
while soft thresholding performs better. This is quantified in Fig. 5, where
the L1 norm of the absolute differences values between the
thresholded KLTs and the ground truth clearly shows that soft thresholding
maintains a better representation of the original dataset than hard
thresholding.Discussion & Conclusion
The presented idea to truncate
the KLT in either a soft or hard way removes the operator dependency for
selecting a proper threshold. By determining the minimum required PC information
in the L1 sense, the obtained real-time dataset does not suffer from
temporal blurring which is of utmost clinical importance. Furthermore, the
beneficial properties of the KLT – streaking reduction and improved apparent
SNR – are maintained. In the presented example, 99.5% of the initial L1
energy of the PC eigenvalues was found to be a good threshold to balance
minimal streaking against temporal accuracy. Please note, even though the image
quality of soft and hard thresholding for 99.50% is almost indistinguishable,
that hard thresholding introduces subtle errors and deviations from the
original dataset (see Fig. 4 and 5). These differences could become critical in
situations where slight signal intensity variations in the myocardium are of
clinical relevance, e.g. in myocardial edema7. More volunteer and
patient datasets are required to establish a robust threshold for the proposed
technique. Also, the decay constant could be further optimized. In general, the
threshold should be well-balanced between streaking artifact removal and
temporal accuracy.Acknowledgements
References
1. Winkelmann S,
Schaeffter T, Koehler T, et al.; IEEE Trans Med Imaging V.26 pp.68-76 (2007)
2. Xue Y, Yu J, Kang HS,
et al.; Magn Reson Med V.67 pp.470-476 (2012)
3. Lin W, Guo J, Rosen M, Song H; Magn Reson Med V.60 pp.1135-1146
(2008)
4. Benkert T, Bartsch AJ,
Blaimer M, et al.; Magn Reson Med V.73 pp.2129-2141 (2015)
5. Barger A, Block W, Toropov Y, et al.; Magn Reson Med V.48 pp.297-305
(2002)
6. Pruessmann K, Weiger M,
Börnert P, et al.; Magn Reson Med V.46 pp.638-651 (2001)
7. Kumar A, Beohar N, Arumana J, et al.; JACC Cardiovasc Imaging V.4
pp.1265-1273 (2011)