» Articles » PMID: 22105698

Sparsity and Low-contrast Object Detectability

Overview
Journal Magn Reson Med
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Radiology
Date 2011 Nov 23
PMID 22105698
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The application of sparsity-driven reconstruction methods to MRI to date has largely focused on situations where high-contrast features (e.g., gadolinium-enhanced vessels) are of primary interest. In clinical practice, however, low contrast features such as subtle lesions are often of equal or greater interest. Using an American College of Radiology MR quality assurance phantom and test, we describe a novel framework for systematically and automatically evaluating the low-contrast object detectability performance of different undersampled image reconstruction methods. This platform is used to evaluate three such methods, two based on classic Tikhonov regularization and one sparsity-driven method based on ℓ(1) -norm minimization (which is commonly used in compressive sensing, also known as compressed sensing, applications), across a wide range of sampling rates and parameterizations. Both the automated evaluation system and a manual evaluation of anatomical images with numerically-generated low contrast inserts demonstrate that sparse reconstructions exhibit superior low-contrast object detectability performance compared to both Tikhonov-regularized reconstructions. The implications of this result, and potential applications of both the described low-contrast object detectability platform and generalizations of it are then discussed.

Citing Articles

Factors influencing daily quality assurance measurements of magnetic resonance imaging scanners.

Owusu N, Magnotta V Radiol Phys Technol. 2021; 14(4):396-401.

PMID: 34623608 PMC: 8497687. DOI: 10.1007/s12194-021-00638-y.


Optimizing constrained reconstruction in magnetic resonance imaging for signal detection.

Pineda A, Miedema H, Lingala S, Nayak K Phys Med Biol. 2021; 66(14).

PMID: 34192682 PMC: 9169904. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac1021.


Compressed sensing MRI: a review from signal processing perspective.

Ye J BMC Biomed Eng. 2020; 1:8.

PMID: 32903346 PMC: 7412677. DOI: 10.1186/s42490-019-0006-z.


Integrated image reconstruction and gradient nonlinearity correction.

Tao S, Trzasko J, Shu Y, Huston 3rd J, Bernstein M Magn Reson Med. 2014; 74(4):1019-31.

PMID: 25298258 PMC: 4390402. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25487.


Potential of compressed sensing in quantitative MR imaging of cancer.

Smith D, Li X, Abramson R, Quarles C, Yankeelov T, Welch E Cancer Imaging. 2014; 13(4):633-44.

PMID: 24434808 PMC: 3893904. DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0041.

References
1.
Gamper U, Boesiger P, Kozerke S . Compressed sensing in dynamic MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2008; 59(2):365-73. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21477. View

2.
Griswold M, Jakob P, Heidemann R, Nittka M, Jellus V, Wang J . Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med. 2002; 47(6):1202-10. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.10171. View

3.
Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly J . Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2007; 58(6):1182-95. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21391. View

4.
Lin F, Kwong K, Belliveau J, Wald L . Parallel imaging reconstruction using automatic regularization. Magn Reson Med. 2004; 51(3):559-67. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.10718. View

5.
Pruessmann K, Weiger M, Scheidegger M, Boesiger P . SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1999; 42(5):952-62. View