脑MRI真实和人工t1加权对比后图像的转移检测。

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Robert Haase, Thomas Pinetz, Erich Kobler, Zeynep Bendella, Daniel Paech, Ralf Clauberg, Martha Foltyn-Dumitru, Verena Wagner, Kai Schlamp, Gudula Heussel, Claus Peter Heussel, Martin Vahlensieck, Julian A Luetkens, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider, Alexander Radbruch, Alexander Effland, Katerina Deike
{"title":"脑MRI真实和人工t1加权对比后图像的转移检测。","authors":"Robert Haase, Thomas Pinetz, Erich Kobler, Zeynep Bendella, Daniel Paech, Ralf Clauberg, Martha Foltyn-Dumitru, Verena Wagner, Kai Schlamp, Gudula Heussel, Claus Peter Heussel, Martin Vahlensieck, Julian A Luetkens, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider, Alexander Radbruch, Alexander Effland, Katerina Deike","doi":"10.1097/RLI.0000000000001137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Small lesions are the limiting factor for reducing gadolinium-based contrast agents in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity and precision in metastasis detection on true contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1w) images and artificial images synthesized by a deep learning method using low-dose images.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, multicenter study (5 centers, 12 scanners), 917 participants underwent brain MRI between October 2021 and March 2023 including T1w low-dose (0.033 mmol/kg) and full-dose (0.1 mmol/kg) images. Forty participants with metastases or unremarkable brain findings were evaluated in a reading (mean age ± SD, 54.3 ± 15.1 years; 24 men). True and artificial T1w images were assessed for metastases in random order with 4 weeks between readings by 2 neuroradiologists. A reference reader reviewed all data to confirm metastases. Performances were compared using mid- P McNemar tests for sensitivity and Wilcoxon signed rank tests for false-positive findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The reference reader identified 97 metastases. The sensitivity of reader 1 did not differ significantly between sequences (sensitivity [precision]: true, 66.0% [98.5%]; artificial, 61.9% [98.4%]; P = 0.38). With a lower precision than reader 1, reader 2 found significantly more metastases using true images (sensitivity [precision]: true, 78.4% [87.4%]; artificial, 60.8% [80.8%]; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in sensitivity for metastases ≥5 mm. The number of false-positive findings did not differ significantly between sequences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>One reader showed a significantly higher overall sensitivity using true images. The similar detection performance for metastases ≥5 mm is promising for applying low-dose imaging in less challenging diagnostic tasks than metastasis detection.</p>","PeriodicalId":14486,"journal":{"name":"Investigative Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metastasis Detection Using True and Artificial T1-Weighted Postcontrast Images in Brain MRI.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Haase, Thomas Pinetz, Erich Kobler, Zeynep Bendella, Daniel Paech, Ralf Clauberg, Martha Foltyn-Dumitru, Verena Wagner, Kai Schlamp, Gudula Heussel, Claus Peter Heussel, Martin Vahlensieck, Julian A Luetkens, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider, Alexander Radbruch, Alexander Effland, Katerina Deike\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/RLI.0000000000001137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Small lesions are the limiting factor for reducing gadolinium-based contrast agents in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity and precision in metastasis detection on true contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1w) images and artificial images synthesized by a deep learning method using low-dose images.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, multicenter study (5 centers, 12 scanners), 917 participants underwent brain MRI between October 2021 and March 2023 including T1w low-dose (0.033 mmol/kg) and full-dose (0.1 mmol/kg) images. Forty participants with metastases or unremarkable brain findings were evaluated in a reading (mean age ± SD, 54.3 ± 15.1 years; 24 men). True and artificial T1w images were assessed for metastases in random order with 4 weeks between readings by 2 neuroradiologists. A reference reader reviewed all data to confirm metastases. Performances were compared using mid- P McNemar tests for sensitivity and Wilcoxon signed rank tests for false-positive findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The reference reader identified 97 metastases. The sensitivity of reader 1 did not differ significantly between sequences (sensitivity [precision]: true, 66.0% [98.5%]; artificial, 61.9% [98.4%]; P = 0.38). With a lower precision than reader 1, reader 2 found significantly more metastases using true images (sensitivity [precision]: true, 78.4% [87.4%]; artificial, 60.8% [80.8%]; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in sensitivity for metastases ≥5 mm. The number of false-positive findings did not differ significantly between sequences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>One reader showed a significantly higher overall sensitivity using true images. The similar detection performance for metastases ≥5 mm is promising for applying low-dose imaging in less challenging diagnostic tasks than metastasis detection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Investigative Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Investigative Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000001137\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investigative Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000001137","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:小病灶是脑磁共振成像(MRI)中减少钆基造影剂的限制因素。本研究旨在比较真实对比度增强 T1 加权(T1w)图像和使用低剂量图像的深度学习方法合成的人工图像检测转移灶的灵敏度和精确度:在这项前瞻性多中心研究(5个中心,12台扫描仪)中,917名参与者在2021年10月至2023年3月期间接受了脑磁共振成像,包括T1w低剂量(0.033毫摩尔/千克)和全剂量(0.1毫摩尔/千克)图像。40名患有转移瘤或脑部检查结果无异常的参与者接受了阅读评估(平均年龄(± SD):54.3±15.1岁;24名男性)。由两名神经放射科医生按随机顺序对真实和人工 T1w 图像进行转移评估,两次读片间隔 4 周。一名参考读者审阅所有数据以确认转移灶。使用中P McNemar检验比较灵敏度,使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较假阳性结果:结果:参考读者识别出 97 例转移灶。阅读器 1 的灵敏度在不同序列之间没有显著差异(灵敏度[精确度]:真实,66.0% [98.5%];人工,61.9% [98.4%];P = 0.38)。读者 2 使用真实图像发现的转移灶明显多于读者 1(灵敏度[精确度]:真实,78.4% [87.4%];人工,60.8% [80.8%];P < 0.001),但精确度低于读者 1。对于≥5 毫米的转移灶,灵敏度没有明显差异。不同序列的假阳性结果数量差异不大:结论:一位读者使用真实图像的总体灵敏度明显更高。对于≥5 毫米的转移灶,相似的检测性能有望将低剂量成像应用于难度低于转移灶检测的诊断任务中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Metastasis Detection Using True and Artificial T1-Weighted Postcontrast Images in Brain MRI.

Objectives: Small lesions are the limiting factor for reducing gadolinium-based contrast agents in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity and precision in metastasis detection on true contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1w) images and artificial images synthesized by a deep learning method using low-dose images.

Materials and methods: In this prospective, multicenter study (5 centers, 12 scanners), 917 participants underwent brain MRI between October 2021 and March 2023 including T1w low-dose (0.033 mmol/kg) and full-dose (0.1 mmol/kg) images. Forty participants with metastases or unremarkable brain findings were evaluated in a reading (mean age ± SD, 54.3 ± 15.1 years; 24 men). True and artificial T1w images were assessed for metastases in random order with 4 weeks between readings by 2 neuroradiologists. A reference reader reviewed all data to confirm metastases. Performances were compared using mid- P McNemar tests for sensitivity and Wilcoxon signed rank tests for false-positive findings.

Results: The reference reader identified 97 metastases. The sensitivity of reader 1 did not differ significantly between sequences (sensitivity [precision]: true, 66.0% [98.5%]; artificial, 61.9% [98.4%]; P = 0.38). With a lower precision than reader 1, reader 2 found significantly more metastases using true images (sensitivity [precision]: true, 78.4% [87.4%]; artificial, 60.8% [80.8%]; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in sensitivity for metastases ≥5 mm. The number of false-positive findings did not differ significantly between sequences.

Conclusions: One reader showed a significantly higher overall sensitivity using true images. The similar detection performance for metastases ≥5 mm is promising for applying low-dose imaging in less challenging diagnostic tasks than metastasis detection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Investigative Radiology
Investigative Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
16.40%
发文量
188
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Investigative Radiology publishes original, peer-reviewed reports on clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, and related modalities. Emphasis is on early and timely publication. Primarily research-oriented, the journal also includes a wide variety of features of interest to clinical radiologists.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信