Suppr超能文献

动态对比增强磁共振成像中房室组织摄取模型的线性与非线性实现方法比较

Comparison of linear and nonlinear implementation of the compartmental tissue uptake model for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

作者信息

Kallehauge Jesper F, Sourbron Steven, Irving Benjamin, Tanderup Kari, Schnabel Julia A, Chappell Michael A

机构信息

Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Division of Biomedical Imaging, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Magn Reson Med. 2017 Jun;77(6):2414-2423. doi: 10.1002/mrm.26324. Epub 2016 Sep 8.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Fitting tracer kinetic models using linear methods is much faster than using their nonlinear counterparts, although this comes often at the expense of reduced accuracy and precision. The aim of this study was to derive and compare the performance of the linear compartmental tissue uptake (CTU) model with its nonlinear version with respect to their percentage error and precision.

THEORY AND METHODS

The linear and nonlinear CTU models were initially compared using simulations with varying noise and temporal sampling. Subsequently, the clinical applicability of the linear model was demonstrated on 14 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer examined with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Simulations revealed equal percentage error and precision when noise was within clinical achievable ranges (contrast-to-noise ratio >10). The linear method was significantly faster than the nonlinear method, with a minimum speedup of around 230 across all tested sampling rates. Clinical analysis revealed that parameters estimated using the linear and nonlinear CTU model were highly correlated (ρ ≥ 0.95).

CONCLUSION

The linear CTU model is computationally more efficient and more stable against temporal downsampling, whereas the nonlinear method is more robust to variations in noise. The two methods may be used interchangeably within clinical achievable ranges of temporal sampling and noise. Magn Reson Med 77:2414-2423, 2017. © 2016 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

摘要

目的

使用线性方法拟合示踪剂动力学模型比使用非线性方法要快得多,尽管这往往是以降低准确性和精度为代价的。本研究的目的是推导并比较线性房室组织摄取(CTU)模型及其非线性版本在百分比误差和精度方面的性能。

理论与方法

最初通过对不同噪声和时间采样的模拟来比较线性和非线性CTU模型。随后,在14例接受动态对比增强磁共振成像检查的局部晚期宫颈癌患者中证明了线性模型的临床适用性。

结果

模拟显示,当噪声在临床可达到的范围内(对比噪声比>10)时,百分比误差和精度相同。线性方法明显比非线性方法快,在所有测试的采样率下,最小加速比约为230。临床分析表明,使用线性和非线性CTU模型估计的参数高度相关(ρ≥0.95)。

结论

线性CTU模型在计算上更高效,对时间下采样更稳定,而非线性方法对噪声变化更稳健。在时间采样和噪声的临床可达到范围内,这两种方法可以互换使用。《磁共振医学》77:2414 - 2423,2017。©2016作者。《磁共振医学》由威利期刊公司代表国际磁共振医学学会出版。这是一篇根据知识共享署名许可协议条款的开放获取文章,允许在任何媒介中使用、分发和复制,前提是正确引用原始作品。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/81cb/5484345/c51a62126edf/MRM-77-2414-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验