Dataset Information

Quantitative assessment of structural image quality.

ABSTRACT: Data quality is increasingly recognized as one of the most important confounding factors in brain imaging research. It is particularly important for studies of brain development, where age is systematically related to in-scanner motion and data quality. Prior work has demonstrated that in-scanner head motion biases estimates of structural neuroimaging measures. However, objective measures of data quality are not available for most structural brain images. Here we sought to identify quantitative measures of data quality for T1-weighted volumes, describe how these measures relate to cortical thickness, and delineate how this in turn may bias inference regarding associations with age in youth. Three highly-trained raters provided manual ratings of 1840 raw T1-weighted volumes. These images included a training set of 1065 images from Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC), a test set of 533 images from the PNC, as well as an external test set of 242 adults acquired on a different scanner. Manual ratings were compared to automated quality measures provided by the Preprocessed Connectomes Project's Quality Assurance Protocol (QAP), as well as FreeSurfer's Euler number, which summarizes the topological complexity of the reconstructed cortical surface. Results revealed that the Euler number was consistently correlated with manual ratings across samples. Furthermore, the Euler number could be used to identify images scored "unusable" by human raters with a high degree of accuracy (AUC: 0.98-0.99), and out-performed proxy measures from functional timeseries acquired in the same scanning session. The Euler number also was significantly related to cortical thickness in a regionally heterogeneous pattern that was consistent across datasets and replicated prior results. Finally, data quality both inflated and obscured associations with age during adolescence. Taken together, these results indicate that reliable measures of data quality can be automatically derived from T1-weighted volumes, and that failing to control for data quality can systematically bias the results of studies of brain maturation.

SUBMITTER: Rosen AFG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5856621 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantitative assessment of structural image quality.

Rosen Adon F G AFG Roalf David R DR Ruparel Kosha K Blake Jason J Seelaus Kevin K Villa Lakshmi P LP Ciric Rastko R Cook Philip A PA Davatzikos Christos C Elliott Mark A MA Garcia de La Garza Angel A Gennatas Efstathios D ED Quarmley Megan M Schmitt J Eric JE Shinohara Russell T RT Tisdall M Dylan MD Craddock R Cameron RC Gur Raquel E RE Gur Ruben C RC Satterthwaite Theodore D TD

NeuroImage 20171224

Data quality is increasingly recognized as one of the most important confounding factors in brain imaging research. It is particularly important for studies of brain development, where age is systematically related to in-scanner motion and data quality. Prior work has demonstrated that in-scanner head motion biases estimates of structural neuroimaging measures. However, objective measures of data quality are not available for most structural brain images. Here we sought to identify quantitative ...[more]

PMID: 29278774

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeRoutine quality assurance (QA) of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans used for image-guided radiotherapy is prescribed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group (TG)-142 report. For CBCT image quality, TG-142 recommends using clinically established baseline values as QA tolerances. This work examined how image quality parameters vary both across machines of the same model and across different CBCT techniques. Additionally, this work investigated how image quality values are affected by imager recalibration and repeated exposures during routine QA.MethodsCone-beam computed tomography scans of the Catphan 604 phantom were taken on four TrueBeam® and one Edge™ linear accelerator using four manufacturer-provided techniques. TG-142 image quality parameters were calculated for each CBCT scan using SunCHECK Machine™. The variability of each parameter with machine and technique was evaluated using a two-way ANOVA test on a dataset consisting of 200 CBCT scans. The impact of imager calibration on image quality parameters was examined for a subset of three machines using an unpaired Student's t-test. The effect of artifacts appearing on CBCTs taken in rapid succession was characterized and an approach to reduce their appearance was evaluated. Additionally, a set of baselines and tolerances for all image quality metrics was presented.ResultsAll imaging parameters except geometric distortion varied with technique (P < 0.05) and all imaging parameters except slice thickness varied with machine (P < 0.05). Imager calibration can change the expected value of all imaging parameters, though it does not consistently do so. While changes are statistically significant, they may not be clinically significant. Finally, rapid acquisition of CBCT scans can introduce image artifacts that degrade CBCT uniformity.ConclusionsThis work characterized the variability of acquired CBCT data across machines and CBCT techniques along with the impact of imager calibration and rapid CBCT acquisition on image quality.

Project description:BackgroundA variety of external factors might seriously degrade PET image quality and lead to inconsistent results. The aim of this study is to explore a potential PET image quality assessment (QA) method with deep learning (DL).MethodsA total of 89 PET images were acquired from Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) in China in this study. Ground-truth quality for images was assessed by two senior radiologists and classified into five grades (grade 1, grade 2, grade 3, grade 4, and grade 5). Grade 5 is the best image quality. After preprocessing, the Dense Convolutional Network (DenseNet) was trained to automatically recognize optimal- and poor-quality PET images. Accuracy (ACC), sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), and area under the ROC Curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the diagnostic properties of all models. All indicators of models were assessed using fivefold cross-validation. An image quality QA tool was developed based on our deep learning model. A PET QA report can be automatically obtained after inputting PET images.ResultsFour tasks were generated. Task2 showed worst performance in AUC,ACC, specificity and sensitivity among 4 tasks, and task1 showed unstable performance between training and testing and task3 showed low specificity in both training and testing. Task 4 showed the best diagnostic properties and discriminative performance between poor image quality (grade 1, grade 2) and good quality (grade 3, grade 4, grade 5) images. The automated quality assessment of task 4 showed ACC = 0.77, specificity = 0.71, and sensitivity = 0.83, in the train set; ACC = 0.85, specificity = 0.79, and sensitivity = 0.91, in the test set, respectively. The ROC measuring performance of task 4 had an AUC of 0.86 in the train set and 0.91 in the test set. The image QA tool could output basic information of images, scan and reconstruction parameters, typical instances of PET images, and deep learning score.ConclusionsThis study highlights the feasibility of the assessment of image quality in PET images using a deep learning model, which may assist with accelerating clinical research by reliably assessing image quality.

Project description:In magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the perception of substandard image quality may prompt repetition of the respective image acquisition protocol. Subsequently selecting the preferred high-quality image data from a series of acquisitions can be challenging. An automated workflow may facilitate and improve this selection. We therefore aimed to investigate the applicability of an automated image quality assessment for the prediction of the subjectively preferred image acquisition. Our analysis included data from 11,347 participants with whole-body MRI examinations performed as part of the ongoing prospective multi-center German National Cohort (NAKO) study. Trained radiologic technologists repeated any of the twelve examination protocols due to induced setup errors and/or subjectively unsatisfactory image quality and chose a preferred acquisition from the resultant series. Up to 11 quantitative image quality parameters were automatically derived from all acquisitions. Regularized regression and standard estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Controlling for setup variations in 2342 series of two or more acquisitions, technologists preferred the repetition over the initial acquisition in 1116 of 1396 series in which the initial setup was retained (79.9%, range across protocols: 73-100%). Image quality parameters then commonly showed statistically significant differences between chosen and discarded acquisitions. In regularized regression across all protocols, 'structured noise maximum' was the strongest predictor for the technologists' choice, followed by 'N/2 ghosting average'. Combinations of the automatically derived parameters provided an area under the ROC curve between 0.51 and 0.74 for the prediction of the technologists' choice. It is concluded that automated image quality assessment can, despite considerable performance differences between protocols and anatomical regions, contribute substantially to identifying the subjective preference in a series of MRI acquisitions and thus provide effective decision support to readers.

Dataset Information

Quantitative assessment of structural image quality.

Publications

Quantitative assessment of structural image quality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets