Agreement of image quality metrics with radiological evaluation in the presence of motion artifacts.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Elisa Marchetto, Hannah Eichhorn, Daniel Gallichan, Julia A Schnabel, Melanie Ganz
{"title":"Agreement of image quality metrics with radiological evaluation in the presence of motion artifacts.","authors":"Elisa Marchetto, Hannah Eichhorn, Daniel Gallichan, Julia A Schnabel, Melanie Ganz","doi":"10.1007/s10334-025-01266-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Reliable image quality assessment is crucial for evaluating new motion correction methods for magnetic resonance imaging. We compare the performance of common reference-based and reference-free image quality metrics on unique datasets with real motion artifacts, and analyze the metrics' robustness to typical pre-processing techniques.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We compared five reference-based and five reference-free metrics on brain data acquired with and without intentional motion (2D and 3D sequences). The metrics were recalculated seven times with varying pre-processing steps. Spearman correlation coefficients were computed to assess the relationship between image quality metrics and radiological evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All reference-based metrics showed strong correlation with observer assessments. Among reference-free metrics, Average Edge Strength offers the most promising results, as it consistently displayed stronger correlations across all sequences compared to the other reference-free metrics. The strongest correlation was achieved with percentile normalization and restricting the metric values to the skull-stripped brain region. In contrast, correlations were weaker when not applying any brain mask and using min-max or no normalization.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Reference-based metrics reliably correlate with radiological evaluation across different sequences and datasets. Pre-processing significantly influences correlation values. Future research should focus on refining pre-processing techniques and exploring approaches for automated image quality evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":18067,"journal":{"name":"Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-025-01266-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Reliable image quality assessment is crucial for evaluating new motion correction methods for magnetic resonance imaging. We compare the performance of common reference-based and reference-free image quality metrics on unique datasets with real motion artifacts, and analyze the metrics' robustness to typical pre-processing techniques.

Materials and methods: We compared five reference-based and five reference-free metrics on brain data acquired with and without intentional motion (2D and 3D sequences). The metrics were recalculated seven times with varying pre-processing steps. Spearman correlation coefficients were computed to assess the relationship between image quality metrics and radiological evaluation.

Results: All reference-based metrics showed strong correlation with observer assessments. Among reference-free metrics, Average Edge Strength offers the most promising results, as it consistently displayed stronger correlations across all sequences compared to the other reference-free metrics. The strongest correlation was achieved with percentile normalization and restricting the metric values to the skull-stripped brain region. In contrast, correlations were weaker when not applying any brain mask and using min-max or no normalization.

Discussion: Reference-based metrics reliably correlate with radiological evaluation across different sequences and datasets. Pre-processing significantly influences correlation values. Future research should focus on refining pre-processing techniques and exploring approaches for automated image quality evaluation.

在运动伪影存在的情况下,图像质量指标与放射学评价的一致性。
目的:可靠的图像质量评估是评价磁共振成像运动校正新方法的关键。我们比较了常见的基于参考和无参考的图像质量指标在具有真实运动伪影的独特数据集上的性能,并分析了这些指标对典型预处理技术的鲁棒性。材料和方法:我们比较了五种基于参考和五种无参考的指标在有和没有故意运动的情况下获得的大脑数据(2D和3D序列)。使用不同的预处理步骤重新计算指标七次。计算Spearman相关系数来评估图像质量指标与放射学评价之间的关系。结果:所有基于参考的指标均与观察者评价有很强的相关性。在无参考指标中,平均边缘强度提供了最有希望的结果,因为与其他无参考指标相比,它始终显示出所有序列之间更强的相关性。最强的相关性是通过百分位数归一化和将度量值限制在去颅骨的大脑区域。相比之下,当不使用任何脑罩和使用最小最大值或不进行归一化时,相关性较弱。讨论:基于参考的指标可靠地与不同序列和数据集的放射学评估相关。预处理显著影响相关值。未来的研究应集中在改进预处理技术和探索自动图像质量评估方法上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: MAGMA is a multidisciplinary international journal devoted to the publication of articles on all aspects of magnetic resonance techniques and their applications in medicine and biology. MAGMA currently publishes research papers, reviews, letters to the editor, and commentaries, six times a year. The subject areas covered by MAGMA include: advances in materials, hardware and software in magnetic resonance technology, new developments and results in research and practical applications of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy related to biology and medicine, study of animal models and intact cells using magnetic resonance, reports of clinical trials on humans and clinical validation of magnetic resonance protocols.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信