European radiology experimental · 2024
Deep learning reconstruction for lumbar spine MRI acceleration: a prospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tang Hui, Hong Ming, Yu Lu, Song Yang, Cao Mengqiu, Xiang Lei, Zhou Yan, Suo Shiteng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) turbo spin-echo images reconstructed using a deep learning technique (TSE-DL) with standard turbo spin-echo (TSE-SD) images of the lumbar spine regarding image quality and detection performance of common degenerative pathologies.
METHODS: This prospective, single-center study included 31 patients (15 males and 16 females; aged 51 ± 16 years (mean ± standard deviation)) who underwent lumbar spine exams with both TSE-SD and TSE-DL acquisitions for degenerative spine diseases. Images were analyzed by two radiologists and assessed for qualitative image quality using a 4-point Likert scale, quantitative signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of anatomic landmarks, and detection of common pathologies. Paired-sample t, Wilcoxon, and McNemar tests, unweighted/linearly weighted Cohen κ statistics, and intraclass correlation coefficients were used.
RESULTS: Scan time for TSE-DL and TSE-SD protocols was 2:55 and 5:17 min:s, respectively. The overall image quality was either significantly higher for TSE-DL or not significantly different between TSE-SD and TSE-DL. TSE-DL demonstrated higher SNR and subject noise scores than TSE-SD. For pathology detection, the interreader agreement was substantial to almost perfect for TSE-DL, with κ values ranging from 0.61 to 1.00; the interprotocol agreement was almost perfect for both readers, with κ values ranging from 0.84 to 1.00. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic confidence or detection rate of common pathologies between the two sequences (p ≥ 0.081).
CONCLUSIONS: TSE-DL allowed for a 45% reduction in scan time over TSE-SD in lumbar spine MRI without compromising the overall image quality and showed comparable detection performance of common pathologies in the evaluation of degenerative lumbar spine changes.
RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Deep learning-reconstructed lumbar spine MRI protocol enabled a 45% reduction in scan time compared with conventional reconstruction, with comparable image quality and detection performance of common degenerative pathologies.
KEY POINTS: • Lumbar spine MRI with deep learning reconstruction has broad application prospects. • Deep learning reconstruction of lumbar spine MRI saved 45% scan time without compromising overall image quality. • When compared with standard sequences, deep learning reconstruction showed similar detection performance of common degenerative lumbar spine pathologies.
METHODS: This prospective, single-center study included 31 patients (15 males and 16 females; aged 51 ± 16 years (mean ± standard deviation)) who underwent lumbar spine exams with both TSE-SD and TSE-DL acquisitions for degenerative spine diseases. Images were analyzed by two radiologists and assessed for qualitative image quality using a 4-point Likert scale, quantitative signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of anatomic landmarks, and detection of common pathologies. Paired-sample t, Wilcoxon, and McNemar tests, unweighted/linearly weighted Cohen κ statistics, and intraclass correlation coefficients were used.
RESULTS: Scan time for TSE-DL and TSE-SD protocols was 2:55 and 5:17 min:s, respectively. The overall image quality was either significantly higher for TSE-DL or not significantly different between TSE-SD and TSE-DL. TSE-DL demonstrated higher SNR and subject noise scores than TSE-SD. For pathology detection, the interreader agreement was substantial to almost perfect for TSE-DL, with κ values ranging from 0.61 to 1.00; the interprotocol agreement was almost perfect for both readers, with κ values ranging from 0.84 to 1.00. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic confidence or detection rate of common pathologies between the two sequences (p ≥ 0.081).
CONCLUSIONS: TSE-DL allowed for a 45% reduction in scan time over TSE-SD in lumbar spine MRI without compromising the overall image quality and showed comparable detection performance of common pathologies in the evaluation of degenerative lumbar spine changes.
RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Deep learning-reconstructed lumbar spine MRI protocol enabled a 45% reduction in scan time compared with conventional reconstruction, with comparable image quality and detection performance of common degenerative pathologies.
KEY POINTS: • Lumbar spine MRI with deep learning reconstruction has broad application prospects. • Deep learning reconstruction of lumbar spine MRI saved 45% scan time without compromising overall image quality. • When compared with standard sequences, deep learning reconstruction showed similar detection performance of common degenerative lumbar spine pathologies.