Fang Liu1 and Li Feng2
1Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States, 2Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
Synopsis
The purpose of this
work was to develop a model-guided self-supervised deep learning MRI
reconstruction framework called REference-free LAtent map eXtraction (RELAX) for
rapid quantitative MR parameter mapping. RELAX eliminates the need for full
sampled reference datasets that are required in standard supervised learning.
Meanwhile, RELAX also enables direct reconstruction of MR parameter maps from
undersampled k-space. Our results demonstrated that the proposed
framework produced accurate and robust T1/T2 mapping in accelerated and low-SNR
MRI. The good quantitative agreement to the reference method suggests that RELAX
allows accelerated quantitative imaging without training with reference data.
INTRODUCTION
Deep learning
methods have been successfully used for image reconstruction with promising
initial results. To date, most deep learning-based MRI reconstruction
techniques are based on a supervised training strategy, which aims to learn the
mapping of undersampled images (with artifacts and noises) to corresponding
reference images (typically fully sampled). One major challenge of supervised
learning, however, is the requirement of abundant training reference images,
which can be difficult to acquire. This is even more challenging for quantitative
imaging because it typically requires prolonged imaging time and is not
routinely implemented in current clinical settings. As a result, the
requirement of reference images for network training can greatly restrict the
broad applications of supervised learning in quantitative MRI. The purpose of
this study was to propose a general self-supervised deep learning reconstruction
framework for quantitative MRI. This technique, called REference-free LAtent
map eXtraction (RELAX), jointly enforces data-driven and physics-driven
training to leverage self-supervised deep learning reconstruction for quantitative
MRI. METHODS
(a) Quantitative Imaging: The RELAX framework
(Figure 1) performs a learning process to estimate latent parameter maps
using Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) mapping and the known MR signal model.
The CNN mapping was implemented for converting the undersampled k-space
data directly to the parameter maps through learning spatiotemporal information
for domain transform. However, unlike standard supervised learning, the RELAX method
removed the requirement for the use of reference quantitative maps to guide the
network training, rather it ensures that the reconstructed parameter maps from
end-to-end CNN mapping produce estimated images matching the acquired images
(i.e. model-guided data consistency for self-supervision). Besides, additional
regularizations that do not rely on references, as implemented in conventional
constrained reconstruction, can be further added to improve the training
performance. The RELAX framework was evaluated for reconstructing T1 and T2 from
undersampled k-space data. T1 mapping was performed based on variable
flip angle (VFA) imaging (1,2). T2 mapping was
performed based on multi-echo spin-echo (MESE) imaging
(3).
(b) Network Implementation:
We used a residual U-Net(4) as convolutional encoder/decoder for
performing the end-to-end CNN mapping.
(c) Evaluation: The evaluation of T1 and T2
mapping was performed using image datasets simulated on a realistic MR
simulator (open-source MRiLab(5)) on 20 brain models scanned at McGill
BrainWeb project(6). A
schematic description of the simulation workflow is shown in Figure 2. For
VFA-based T1 mapping, the spoiled gradient echo sequence: TR/TE = 8.5/3.9 ms, 8 flip angles =
[3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 18]°, number of slices = 40, FOV = 22x22cm2,
and matrix = 256×256. For T2 mapping,
the multi-echo spin-echo sequence:
TR/16TEs = 2500/[10, 20, 30, …, 160] ms, flip angle = 90°, number of slices =
40, FOV = 22x22cm2, and matrix = 256×256. The training/testing data
were 18/2 subjects. The performance of RELAX was evaluated for suppressing
image noises and/or aliasing artifacts induced by retrospectively undersampling
MR k-space. We conducted three experiments. 1) Complex Gaussian
noise was added into the simulated noise-free k-space to emulate noise
contamination at different noise levels (2.5%, 5%, 10%). 2) Undersampling
was simulated by retaining 5% of central k-space to achieve an
acceleration rate (R) of 5 using a 1D variable density Cartesian pattern. The
sampling pattern was randomly generated for each dynamic frame. 3)
Combination of 1) and 2) was used to create noisy undersampled k-space
data. The result was compared with standard non-linear least square fit (NLLS)
method and cross-validated with ground-truth T1/T2 maps.RESULTS
Figure 3 and 4 show representative T1 and
T2 maps estimated using RELAX in one simulated brain dataset at three different
experimental conditions. On the T1 and T2 maps generated by using the standard
NLLS fitting, there is notable noise contamination caused by the added Gaussian
noise at 5% noise level (NL) and aliasing artifacts caused by the k-space
undersampling at R=5 with simple zero-filling reconstruction. RELAX
successfully suppressed the noises and removed the undersampling artifacts
through self-supervised deep learning reconstruction, providing image quality
that is comparable to the noise/artifact-free ground truth (G.T.) T1 and T2 maps.
Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate the generality of RELAX to model different
quantitative imaging process by incorporating corresponding signal models based
on self-supervised learning. Figure 5 shows the performance of RELAX in
different noise levels. Generally, RELAX generated acceptable T1 or T2
parameters at different noise conditions due to the inherent noise suppression
in CNN training and the additional spatial TV constraint. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The direct
image-to-parameter transformation enabled by the model-augmented CNN mapping
with self-supervised learning provides a promising approach for efficient and
robust MR parameter mapping. The proposed framework produced accurate solutions
for parameters in both accelerated and low-SNR imaging applications. This new
framework provides good quantitative agreement with standard NLLS while used
only undersampled data or noise-contaminated data. This new technique may be
particularly useful in quantitative MRI applications where fully sampled
reference images are challenging to acquire. It holds great potential to
improve imaging speed in quantitative MRI and to help the clinical translation
of quantitative imaging. In addition, the proposed framework can be extended to
support other quantitative imaging with the incorporation of proper MR signal
models.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1.
Wang HZ, Riederer SJ, Lee JN. Optimizing the precision in T1 relaxation
estimation using limited flip angles. Magn. Reson. Med. 1987;5:399–416 doi:
10.1002/mrm.1910050502.
2.
Venkatesan R, Lin W, Haacke EM. Accurate determination of spin-density and T1 in
the presence of RF- field inhomogeneities and flip-angle miscalibration. Magn.
Reson. Med. 1998;40:592–602 doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910400412.
3.
Meiboom S, Gill D. Modified Spin‐Echo Method for Measuring Nuclear Relaxation
Times. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 1958;29:688–691 doi: 10.1063/1.1716296.
4.
Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical
Image Segmentation. In: Navab N, Hornegger J, Wells WM, Frangi AF, editors.
Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention -- MICCAI 2015: 18th
International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part
III. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 234–241. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28.
5.
Liu F, Velikina J V., Block WF, Kijowski R, Samsonov AA. Fast Realistic MRI
Simulations Based on Generalized Multi-Pool Exchange Tissue Model. IEEE Trans.
Med. Imaging 2017;36:527–537 doi: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2620961.
6.
Aubert-Broche B, Griffin M, Pike GB, Evans AC, Collins DL. Twenty new digital
brain phantoms for creation of validation image data bases. IEEE Trans. Med.
Imaging 2006;25:1410–1416 doi: 10.1109/TMI.2006.883453.