1. Artificial intelligence based image quality enhancement in liver MRI: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation
- Author
-
Marta Zerunian, Francesco Pucciarelli, Damiano Caruso, Michela Polici, Benedetta Masci, Gisella Guido, Domenico De Santis, Daniele Polverari, Daniele Principessa, Antonella Benvenga, Elsa Iannicelli, and Andrea Laghi
- Subjects
Adult ,scanning time ,Echo-Planar Imaging ,Reproducibility of Results ,General Medicine ,Middle Aged ,Image Enhancement ,Magnetic Resonance Imaging ,Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging ,artificial intelligence ,image quality ,sequences optimization ,Liver ,Artificial Intelligence ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Female ,Prospective Studies ,Aged - Abstract
Purpose To compare liver MRI with AIR Recon Deep Learning™(ARDL) algorithm applied and turned-off (NON-DL) with conventional high-resolution acquisition (NAÏVE) sequences, in terms of quantitative and qualitative image analysis and scanning time. Material and methods This prospective study included fifty consecutive volunteers (31 female, mean age 55.5 ± 20 years) from September to November 2021. 1.5 T MRI was performed and included three sets of images: axial single-shot fast spin-echo (SSFSE) T2 images, diffusion-weighted images(DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient(ADC) maps acquired with both ARDL and NAÏVE protocol; the NON-DL images, were also assessed. Two radiologists in consensus drew fixed regions of interest in liver parenchyma to calculate signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and contrast to-noise-ratio (CNR). Subjective image quality was assessed by two other radiologists independently with a five-point Likert scale. Acquisition time was recorded. Results SSFSE T2 objective analysis showed higher SNR and CNR for ARDL vs NAÏVE, ARDL vs NON-DL(all P P > 0.2517).CNR was higher for ARDL vs NON-DL(P = 0.0170), whereas no differences were found between ARDL and NAÏVE(P = 1). No differences were observed for all three comparisons, in terms of SNR and CNR, for ADC maps (all P > 0.32). Qualitative analysis for all sequences showed better overall image quality for ARDL with lower truncation artifacts, higher sharpness and contrast (all P k ≥ 0.8143). Acquisition time was lower in ARDL sequences compared to NAÏVE (SSFSE T2 = 19.08 ± 2.5 s vs. 24.1 ± 2 s and DWI = 207.3 ± 54 s vs. 513.6 ± 98.6 s, all P Conclusion ARDL applied on upper abdomen showed overall better image quality and reduced scanning time compared with NAÏVE protocol.
- Published
- 2022