Synopsis
Motion is still one of the major extrinsic
factors degrading image quality. Automated detection of these artifacts is of
interest, (i) if suitable prospective or retrospective correction techniques
are not available/applicable, (ii) if human experts who judge the achieved
quality are not present, or (iii) if a manual quality analysis of large
databases from epidemiological cohort studies is impracticable. A
convolutional neural network assesses and localizes the motion artifacts. This
work extends the previously published method by proposing a general
architecture for a whole-body scenario with varying contrast weightings. High
accuracies of >90% were achieved in a volunteer study.
Introduction
MRI offers a broad variety of imaging
applications with targeted and flexible sequence and reconstruction
parametrization. Varying acquisition conditions and long examination times make
MRI susceptible to imaging artifacts, amongst which motion is one of the major
extrinsic factors deteriorating image quality.
Images recorded for clinical diagnosis are
often inspected by a human specialist to determine the achieved image quality
which can be a time-demanding and cost-intensive process. If insufficient
quality is determined too late, an additional examination may be even required
decreasing patient comfort and throughput. Moreover, in the context of large epidemiological
cohort studies such as UK Biobank1 or German National Cohort2 the amount and complexity exceed practicability for a manual image quality
analysis. Thus, in order to guarantee high data quality, arising artifacts need
to be detected as early as possible to seize appropriate countermeasures, as e.g.
prospective3-5 or retrospective correction techniques6-9.
However, these methods are not always available and/or applicable. Moreover, when
a human expert is not present or for large cohort studies, the potential presence
of motion artifacts demands an automatic processing for a prospective quality
assurance or retrospective quality assessment.
Previously proposed approaches for automated
medical image quality analysis require the existence of a reference image and/or
were only focused on specific sequences and scenarios10-12. Reference-free
approaches13-17 are mainly metric-based driven to evaluate the quality
on a coarse level.
In none of the previous approaches a motion
artifact localization and quantification was conducted. We therefore proposed
an automatic and reference-free motion artifact detection by a machine-learning
convolutional neural network (CNN) approach18,19. In our previous
study, the architecture was kept intentionally shallow because of the limited
amount of data and investigations focused only on motion in head and abdominal
region for one imaging sequence. In this work, we investigate a general architecture
for motion artifact detection in a whole-body scenario with two contrast
weightings.
Material and Methods
MR images were acquired on a 3T PET/MR
(Biograph mMR, Siemens) from 18 healthy volunteers (3 female, 25±8y) with
a T1w and T2w FSE sequence. The acquisition parameters for the respective body
regions (head, abdomen, pelvis) are depicted in Tab.1. Each of the five
sequences was acquired twice for every volunteer. During the first acquisition
volunteers were asked to avoid movements (head, pelvis) or an end-expiratory
breath-hold (T1w) respectively navigator-triggering (T2w) was conducted in the
abdominal region. In the second acquisition, volunteers were asked to move
their heads, hips (rigid deformation) or to breathe normal (non-rigid
deformation). Images are normalized into an intensity range of 0 to 1 and
partitioned into 50% overlapping patches of size 40x40x10 (APxLRxSI).
The proposed CNN architectures are depicted in
Fig.2 and compared against the previously published 2D-CNN18 to
output artifact probabilities p. 3D-CNN
depicts the 3D extension of the 2D-CNN with three convolutional layers of N filter kernels/channels of size MxLxB with rectified linear unit (ReLU)
activation, followed by a fully-connected dense layer with softmax decision.
The MNetArt is inspired by MNet20
consisting of four stages followed by a dense output layer. Each stage contains
two convolutional layers with ReLU activation, an intermittent and finalizing
concatenation layer. This resembles a residual path to forward feature maps in
and between stages. The first three layers exhibit an additional max-pooling
downsampling.
The VNetArt is inspired by VNet21 consisting
of three stages followed by a dense output layer. Each stage has two
convolutional layers with ReLU activation, a finalizing concatenation layer
(residual path) and max-pooling downsampling.
The four architectures (2D-CNN, 3D-CNN,
MNetArt, VNetArt) are trained by a leave-one-subject-out cross-validation on (i)
the complete training database, (ii) the subset consisting only of T1w or T2w
images, (iii) subsets leaving-out one body region. Categorical cross-entropy is
minimized for given learning rate, $$$\ell_2$$$ regularization and dropout. Parameter ranges are estimated by the
Baum-Haussler rule22 with a grid-search optimization. Testing was
performed on the left-out subject to determine accuracy, sensitivity (true positive
rate; TPR) and specificity (true negative rate; TNR).
Results and Discussion
Fig.3 depicts exemplary subject slices overlaid
with the derived and localized motion artifact probabilities. For this small
moving subject a high accuracy of 98%/83%/90% in the head, abdomen and pelvis
was achieved, respectively. Fig.4 illustrates superior performance of 3D
processing and inclusion of residual paths. Performance is influenced by
trained body regions (type of motion), but is independent of contrast
weighting. Overall, VNetArt performs best for all metrics.Conclusion
Proposed architectures improve previously
reported network by 17%. Automatic motion artifact quantification and
localization is feasible in a whole-body setting of various imaging sequences
with accuracies >90%.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] W.
Ollier, T. Sprosen, and T. Peakman, “UK Biobank: from concept to reality,”
Pharmacogenomics, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 639-646, 2005.
[2] F. Bamberg, H. U. Kauczor, S. Weckbach, C. L.
Schlett, M. Forsting, S. C. Ladd, K. H. Greiser, M. A. Weber, J. Schulz-Menger,
T. Niendorf, T. Pischon, S. Caspers, K. Amunts, K. Berger, R. Bulow, N. Hosten,
K. Hegenscheid, T. Kroncke, J. Linseisen, M. Gunther, J. G. Hirsch, A. Kohn, T.
Hendel, H. E. Wichmann, B. Schmidt, K. H. Jockel, W. Hoffmann, R. Kaaks, M. F.
Reiser, and H. Volzke, “Whole-Body MR Imaging in the German National Cohort:
Rationale, Design, and Technical Background,” Radiology, vol. 277, no. 1, pp. 206–20,
2015.
[3] M.
Zaitsev, J. Maclaren, and M. Herbst, “Motion artifacts in mri: A complex
problem with many partial solutions,” J. Magn. Reson. Imaging., vol. 42, no. 4,
pp. 887–901, 2015.
[4] J.
Maclaren, M. Herbst, O. Speck, and M. Zaitsev, “Prospective motion correction
in brain imaging: a review,” Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 621–36,
2013.
[5] F.
Godenschweger, U. Kagebein, D. Stucht, U. Yarach, A. Sciarra, R. Yakupov, F.
Lusebrink, P. Schulze, and O. Speck, “Motion correction in mri of the brain,”
Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. R32–56, 2016.
[6] L.
Feng, R. Grimm, K. T. Block, H. Chandarana, S. Kim, J. Xu, L. Axel, D. K.
Sodickson, and R. Otazo, “Golden-angle radial sparse parallel mri: combination
of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and golden-angle radial sampling for fast
and flexible dynamic volumetric mri,” Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 72, no. 3, pp.
707–17, 2014.
[7] J.
Y. Cheng, T. Zhang, N. Ruangwattanapaisarn, M. T. Alley, M. Uecker, J. M.
Pauly, M. Lustig, and S. S. Vasanawala, “Free-breathing pediatric mri with nonrigid
motion correction and acceleration,” J. Magn. Reson. Imaging., vol. 42, no. 2,
pp. 407–20, 2015.
[8] G.
Cruz, D. Atkinson, C. Buerger, T. Schaeffter, and C. Prieto, “Accelerated
motion corrected three-dimensional abdominal mri using total variation
regularized sense reconstruction,” Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 75, no. 4, pp.
1484–98, 2016.
[9] T. Küstner,
C. Würslin, M. Schwartz, P. Martirosian, S. Gatidis, C. Brendle, F. Seith, F.
Schick, N.F. Schwenzer, B. Yang, and H. Schmidt, “Self-navigated 4d cartesian
imaging of periodic motion in the body trunk using partial k-space compressed sensing,”
Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 632–644, 2017.
[10] J.
Oh, S. I. Woolley, T. N. Arvanitis, and J. N. Townend, “A multistage perceptual
quality assessment for compressed digital angiogram images,” IEEE Trans. Med.
Imaging., vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1352–61, 2001.
[11] J.
Miao, D. Huo, and D. L. Wilson, “Quantitative image quality evaluation of MR
images using perceptual difference models,” Med. Phys., vol. 35, no. 6, pp.
2541–53, 2008.
[12] A.
Ouled Zaid and B. B. Fradj, “Coronary angiogram video compression for remote
browsing and archiving applications,” Comput. Med. Imaging. Graph., vol. 34,
no. 8, pp. 632–41, 2010.
[13] B.
Mortamet, M. A. Bernstein, Jr. Jack, C. R., J. L. Gunter, C. Ward, P. J.
Britson, R. Meuli, J. P. Thiran, and G. Krueger, “Automatic quality assessment
in structural brain magnetic resonance imaging,” Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 62,
no. 2, pp. 365–72, 2009.
[14] J.
P. Woodard and M. P. Carley-Spencer, “No-reference image quality metrics for
structural MRI,” Neuroinformatics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 243–62, 2006.
[15] M.
D. Tisdall and M. S. Atkins, “Using human and model performance to compare MRI
reconstructions,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging., vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1510–7, 2006.
[16] D.
Atkinson, D. L. Hill, P. N. Stoyle, P. E. Summers, and S. F. Keevil, “Automatic
correction of motion artifacts in magnetic resonance images using an entropy
focus criterion,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 903–10, 1997.
[17] K.
P. McGee, A. Manduca, J. P. Felmlee, S. J. Riederer, and R. L. Ehman, “Image
metric-based correction (autocorrection) of motion effects: analysis of image
metrics,” J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 174–181, 2000.
[18] T.
Küstner, A. Liebgott, L. Mauch, P. Martirosian, F. Bamberg, K. Nikolaou, B.
Yang, F. Schick, and S. Gatidis, “Automated reference-free detection of motion
artifacts in magnetic resonance images,” Magn. Reson. Mater. Phys., Biol. Med.,
Sep 2017.
[19] T.
Küstner, A. Liebgott, L. Mauch, P. Martirosian, K. Nikolaou, F. Schick, B.
Yang, and S. Gatidis, „Automatic reference-free detection and quantification of
MR image artifacts in human examinations due to motion,” ISMRM Proceedings, p. 1278, 2017.
[20] R.
Mehta and J. Sivaswamy, “M-net: A Convolutional Neural Network for deep brain
structure segmentation,” in IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging
(ISBI), April 2017, pp. 437–440.
[21] F.
Milletari, N. Navab, and S.-A. Ahmadi, “V-Net: Fully Convolutional Neural
Networks for volumetric Medical Image Segmentation,”
ArXiv e-prints, June 2016.
[22] E.B. Baum and D. Haussler, “What Size Net
Gives Valid Generalization?,” Neural Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 151–160, Mar.
1989.