| Popis: |
This study aimed to accelerate the 3D magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo (MPRAGE) sequence for brain imaging through the deep neural network (DNN).This retrospective study used the k-space data of 240 scans (160 for the training set, mean ± standard deviation age, 93 ± 80 months, 94 males; 80 for the test set, 106 ± 83 months, 44 males) of conventional MPRAGE (C-MPRAGE) and 102 scans (77 ± 74 months, 52 males) of both C-MPRAGE and accelerated MPRAGE. All scans were acquired with 3T scanners. DNN was developed with simulated-acceleration data generated by under-sampling. Quantitative error metrics were compared between images reconstructed with DNN, GRAPPA, and E-SPIRIT using the paired t-test. Qualitative image quality was compared between C-MPRAGE and accelerated MPRAGE reconstructed with DNN (DNN-MPRAGE) by two readers. Lesions were segmented and the agreement between C-MPRAGE and DNN-MPRAGE was assessed using linear regression.Accelerated MPRAGE reduced scan times by 38% compared to C-MPRAGE (142 s vs. 320 s). For quantitative error metrics, DNN showed better performance than GRAPPA and E-SPIRIT (p0.001). For qualitative evaluation, overall image quality of DNN-MPRAGE was comparable (p0.999) or better (p = 0.025) than C-MPRAGE, depending on the reader. Pixelation was reduced in DNN-MPRAGE (p0.001). Other qualitative parameters were comparable (p0.05). Lesions in C-MPRAGE and DNN-MPRAGE showed good agreement for the dice similarity coefficient (= 0.68) and linear regression (RDNN-MPRAGE reduced acquisition time by 38% and revealed comparable image quality to C-MPRAGE.• DNN-MPRAGE reduced acquisition times by 38%. • DNN-MPRAGE outperformed conventional reconstruction on accelerated scans (SSIM of DNN-MPRAGE = 0.96, GRAPPA = 0.43, E-SPIRIT = 0.88; p0.001). • Compared to C-MPRAGE scans, DNN-MPRAGE showed improved mean scores for overall image quality (2.46 vs. 2.52; p0.001) or comparable perceived SNR (2.56 vs. 2.58; p = 0.08). |
Full text from SpringerLink