Jakob Meineke1, Christian Wülker1, Jean Tkach2, Usha Nagaraj2, Mariya Doneva1, and Tim Nielsen1
1Philips Reseach, Hamburg, Germany, 2Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States
Synopsis
Keywords: MR Fingerprinting/Synthetic MR, MR Fingerprinting
A neural network for the estimation and removal of colored noise in non-Cartesian MRI is trained and subsequently applied for denoising coefficient images in MR Fingerprinting. It is shown that the neural network does not introduce bias in the quantitative parameter maps and improves their precision. Invivo T1- and T2-maps are demonstrated to be visually improved.
Introduction
Deep-learning approaches have great potential in medical image denoising showing improvements over
classical methods1,2. In supervised learning, models in the
form of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are
trained to remove noise from input images by presenting the model with noisy
images and their noise-free counterparts during the training phase. This process is straightforward in the case of Cartesian
MRI where the noise manifests as independent complex Gaussian noise. In contrast, non-Cartesian MRI exhibits colored noise, necessitating a method to train neural
networks to detect and remove random contributions from the corresponding non-trivial
noise power spectrum (NPS). This work reports
on the training and application of a neural network for estimating
and subtracting the colored noise arising in non-Cartesian spiral MR Fingerprinting
data.Methods
Noisy images were created injecting noise in the measurement process similar to Ref3. To ensure the network learns the characteristics of the noise instead
of features deriving from the measurement model, target images were created in
the same way but without adding noise. The denoising model was trained in
residual learning mode, i.e. the network outputs an estimate of the noise in the
input image. The denoising framework also comprised a frequency split, meaning that the CNN was trained to operate on the
high-frequency part of the input images only, assuming that the high-frequency
part is unaffected by image contrast and contains all the noise to be removed
from the image.
Based on these training data, a bias-free
denoising CNN (BF-DnCNN)2 was trained on image patches using ADAM optimizer4 with mean-error
(L1) loss.
Phantom
measurements (HPD System Phantom Model 130) were performed on a 3T
scanner (Ingenia, Philips) with a 15-channel head-coil using a multi-slice
gradient-spoiled MRF sequence with N=625 excitation pulses6 following an
inversion pulse with following sequence parameters: FOV=224mm, TR=12ms, TE=3ms,
voxel-size=1.0mm, slice-thickness=4mm, spiral acq-window=5.8ms, num spiral
interleaves=36. Comparable brain images were acquired in pediatric patients at Cincinnati
Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) on a 1.5T scanner (Ingenia, Philips) with 15 channel headcoil as part of an
ongoing IRB approved study. Multi-slice gradient-spoiled MRF with N=500 RF pulses5 following an
inversion pulse was used with the following sequence parameters: FOV=224mm,
TR=20ms, TE=3ms, voxel-size=1.0mm, slice-thickness=4mm, spiral
acq-window=13.7ms, num spiral interleaves=18.
Reconstruction was performed using non-iterative low-rank
inversion to obtain coefficient images. Briefly, coefficient images $$$\hat{x}$$$ were computed using $$\hat{x}=E^H(SV)^{-1}wy,$$ where $$$y$$$ is the non-Cartesian
undersampled k-space data, $$$w$$$ the density compensation weights, $$$E$$$ is the non-Cartesian
measurement operator including coil-sensitivities and non-uniform FFT, $$$V$$$ is the
temporal subspace basis and $$$S$$$ the selection operator, which determines for which timepoints along the MRF signal a given k-space location is measured. Finally,
the denoising network was applied separately to the real and imaginary components of the
coefficient images, and the resulting noise estimate partially (75%) subtracted. Dictionary matching was performed in the compressed
domain to obtain T1- and T2-maps. For comparison, dictionary matching was also performed without denoising of the coefficient images.
The effect of the denoising network on coefficient
images and matched T1 and T2 maps was assessed quantitatively within the
spherical probes of the T2 plane5 of the phantom.Results
Figure 1 shows the coefficient images with and
without denoising. A clear reduction of the noise can be observed
for the images for coefficient numbers 2-4, which contain decreasingly less signal. This is also apparent in Figure 2, showing
the standard-deviation of the complex signal within the 14 segmented
probes for all coefficient images. Figure 3 shows the statistical distribution of matched T1 and T2 values for each segmented
probe, demonstrating
that the denoising network does not introduce a bias in the matched
quantitative values. Furthermore, the distribution of matched quantitative
values is narrower for all probes when using the denoising network, indicating
an improved precision of the measurement. Finally, Figure 4 shows invivo T1
and T2 maps from a brain scan. Both quantitative
maps show an improved visual appearance when using the denoising network, with a
particularly strong effect in the T2 map.Discussion and Conclusion
The results presented here demonstrate that
a denoising network tailored to remove the colored noise arising in
non-Cartesian spiral MRI can be used to significantly reduce the noise
contribution in MRF coefficients maps. The amount of denoising can be chosen flexibly and adapted to the situtation. The application of the used denoising
network does not introduce any bias in the estimates of quantitative relaxation
parameters in phantom experiments. Furthermore, denoising leads to a marked
increase in the SNR of parameter estimation as seen in the reduced width of the
distribution of matched values within the spherical probes of the phantom. Quantitative
relaxation maps in patients have been shown to be visually improved.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Zhang, K., Zuo, W., Chen, Y.,
Meng, D., and Zhang, L. (2017). Beyond a Gaussian denoiser: Residual
learning of deep CNN for image denoising. IEEE Trans. Image Process 26(7):3142-3155.
2. Mohan, S., Kadkhodaie, Z., Simoncelli, E. P., and
Fernandez-Granda, C. (2020) Robust and interpretable blind image denoising via
bias-free convolutional neural networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05478
3. Robson, P et al, Comprehensive quantification of signal-to-noise ratio and g-factor for image-based and k-space-based parallel imaging reconstructions, MRM 60, 895 (2008), doi:10.1002/mrm.21728
4. Kingma, D. K., and Ba, J. (2017) Adam: A Method for
Stochastic Optimization. https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980
5. Sommer, K et al, Magn Reson Imaging 41, 7 (2017), doi:10.1016/j.mri.2017.06.015
6. Stupic et al, MRM 86, 1194 (2021), doi:10.1002/mrm.28779