A Comparative Study of Consistency on 1.5-T to 3.0-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Conversion.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Jie Li, Yujie Zhang, Jingang Chen, Weiqi Liu, Yizhe Wang, Zhuozhao Zheng
{"title":"A Comparative Study of Consistency on 1.5-T to 3.0-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Conversion.","authors":"Jie Li, Yujie Zhang, Jingang Chen, Weiqi Liu, Yizhe Wang, Zhuozhao Zheng","doi":"10.2174/0115734056383931250919073319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purposes: </strong>Deep learning methods were employed to perform harmonization analysis on whole-brain scans obtained from 1.5-T and 3.0-T scanners, aiming to increase comparability between different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty patients evaluated in Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital between August 2020 and March 2023 were included in this retrospective study. Three MRI scanners were used to scan patients, and automated brain image segmentation was performed to obtain volumes of different brain regions. Differences in regional volumes across scanners were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. For regions showing significant differences, super-resolution deep learning was applied to enhance consistency, with subsequent comparison of results. For regions still exhibiting differences, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated and the consistency was evaluated using Cicchetti's criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Average whole-brain volumes for different scanners among patients were 1152.36mm<sup>3</sup> (SD = 95.34), 1136.92mm<sup>3</sup> (SD = 108.21), and 1184.00mm<sup>3</sup> (SD = 102.78), respectively. Analysis revealed significant variations in all 12 brain regions (p<0.05), indicating a lack of comparability among imaging results obtained from different magnetic field strengths. After deep learning-based consistency optimization, most brain regions showed no significant differences, except for six regions where differences remained significant. Among these, three regions demonstrated ICC values of 0.868 (95%CI 0.771-0.931), 0.776 (95%CI 0.634-0.877), and 0.893 (95%CI 0.790-0.947), indicating high reproducibility and comparability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study employed a novel machine learning approach that significantly improved the comparability of imaging results from patients using different magnetic field strengths and various models of MRI scanners. Furthermore, it enhanced the consistency of central nervous system image segmentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":54215,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Imaging Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Imaging Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056383931250919073319","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

Purposes: Deep learning methods were employed to perform harmonization analysis on whole-brain scans obtained from 1.5-T and 3.0-T scanners, aiming to increase comparability between different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners.

Methods: Thirty patients evaluated in Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital between August 2020 and March 2023 were included in this retrospective study. Three MRI scanners were used to scan patients, and automated brain image segmentation was performed to obtain volumes of different brain regions. Differences in regional volumes across scanners were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. For regions showing significant differences, super-resolution deep learning was applied to enhance consistency, with subsequent comparison of results. For regions still exhibiting differences, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated and the consistency was evaluated using Cicchetti's criteria.

Results: Average whole-brain volumes for different scanners among patients were 1152.36mm3 (SD = 95.34), 1136.92mm3 (SD = 108.21), and 1184.00mm3 (SD = 102.78), respectively. Analysis revealed significant variations in all 12 brain regions (p<0.05), indicating a lack of comparability among imaging results obtained from different magnetic field strengths. After deep learning-based consistency optimization, most brain regions showed no significant differences, except for six regions where differences remained significant. Among these, three regions demonstrated ICC values of 0.868 (95%CI 0.771-0.931), 0.776 (95%CI 0.634-0.877), and 0.893 (95%CI 0.790-0.947), indicating high reproducibility and comparability.

Conclusion: This study employed a novel machine learning approach that significantly improved the comparability of imaging results from patients using different magnetic field strengths and various models of MRI scanners. Furthermore, it enhanced the consistency of central nervous system image segmentation.

1.5 t与3.0 t磁共振成像转换一致性的比较研究。
目的:采用深度学习方法对1.5 t和3.0 t扫描仪获得的全脑扫描结果进行协调分析,旨在提高不同磁共振成像(MRI)扫描仪之间的可比性。方法:对2020年8月至2023年3月在北京清华长庚医院接受评估的30例患者进行回顾性研究。使用三台MRI扫描仪对患者进行扫描,并进行自动脑图像分割以获得不同脑区域的体积。使用重复测量方差分析分析扫描仪区域体积的差异。对于存在显著差异的区域,采用超分辨率深度学习增强一致性,并对结果进行对比。对于仍然存在差异的区域,计算类内相关系数(ICC),并使用Cicchetti标准评估一致性。结果:不同扫描仪对患者的平均全脑体积分别为1152.36mm3 (SD = 95.34)、1136.92mm3 (SD = 108.21)、1184.00mm3 (SD = 102.78)。结论:本研究采用了一种新颖的机器学习方法,显著提高了使用不同磁场强度和不同型号MRI扫描仪的患者成像结果的可比性。进一步增强了中枢神经系统图像分割的一致性。
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
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
246
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Current Medical Imaging Reviews publishes frontier review articles, original research articles, drug clinical trial studies and guest edited thematic issues on all the latest advances on medical imaging dedicated to clinical research. All relevant areas are covered by the journal, including advances in the diagnosis, instrumentation and therapeutic applications related to all modern medical imaging techniques. The journal is essential reading for all clinicians and researchers involved in medical imaging and diagnosis.
×
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