Xu Xu, Peng Wan-Lin, Zhang Jin-Ge, Liu Ke-Ling, Hu Si-Xian, Zeng Ling-Ming, Xia Chun-Chao, Li Zhen-Lin
Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2021 Mar;52(2):293-299. doi: 10.12182/20210360104.
To compare the noise reduction performance of conventional filtering and artificial intelligence-based filtering and interpolation (AIFI) and to explore for optimal parameters of applying AIFI in the noise reduction of abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Sixty patients who underwent upper abdominal MRI examination in our hospital were retrospectively included. The raw data of T1-weighted image (T1WI), T2-weighted image (T2WI), and dualecho sequences were reconstructed with two image denoising techniques, conventional filtering and AIFI of different levels of intensity. The difference in objective image quality indicators, peak signal-to-noise ratio (pSNR) and image sharpness, of the different denoising techniques was compared. Two radiologists evaluated the image noise, contrast, sharpness, and overall image quality. Their scores were compared and the interobserver agreement was calculated.
Compared with the original images, improvement of varying degrees were shown in the pSNR and the sharpness of the images of the three sequences, T1W1, T2W2, and dual echo sequence, after denoising filtering and AIFI were used (all <0.05). In addition, compared with conventional filtering, the objective quality scores of the reconstructed images were improved when conventional filtering was combined with AIFI reconstruction methods in T1WI sequence, AIFI level≥3 was used in T2WI and echo1 sequence, and AIFI level≥4 was used in echo2 sequence (all <0.05). The subjective scores given by the two radiologists for the image noise, contrast, sharpness, and overall image quality in each sequence of conventional filtering reconstruction, AIFI reconstruction (except for AIFI level=1), and two-method combination reconstruction were higher than those of the original images (all <0.05). However, the image contrast scores were reduced for AIFI level=5. There was good interobserver agreement between the two radiologists (all >0.75, <0.05). After multidimensional comparison, the optimal parameters of using AIFI technique for noise reduction in abdominal MRI were conventional filtering+AIFI level=3 in the T1WI sequence and AIFI level=4 in the T2WI and dualecho sequences.
AIFI is superior to filtering in imaging denoising at medium and high levels. It is a promising noise reduction technique. The optimal parameters of using AIFI for abdominal MRI are Filtering+AIFI level=3 in the T1WI sequence and AIFI level=4 in T2WI and dualecho sequences.
比较传统滤波与基于人工智能的滤波和插值(AIFI)的降噪性能,并探索在腹部磁共振成像(MRI)降噪中应用AIFI的最佳参数。
回顾性纳入我院60例行上腹部MRI检查的患者。采用传统滤波和不同强度水平的AIFI这两种图像去噪技术,对T1加权像(T1WI)、T2加权像(T2WI)和双回波序列的原始数据进行重建。比较不同去噪技术在客观图像质量指标、峰值信噪比(pSNR)和图像清晰度方面的差异。两名放射科医生对图像噪声、对比度、清晰度和整体图像质量进行评估。比较他们的评分并计算观察者间的一致性。
与原始图像相比,在使用去噪滤波和AIFI后,T1W1、T2W2和双回波序列的图像的pSNR和清晰度均有不同程度的提高(均<0.05)。此外,与传统滤波相比,在T1WI序列中,当传统滤波与AIFI重建方法联合使用时,重建图像的客观质量评分得到改善;在T2WI和回波1序列中使用AIFI水平≥3,在回波2序列中使用AIFI水平≥4时,重建图像的客观质量评分也得到改善(均<0.05)。两名放射科医生对传统滤波重建、AIFI重建(AIFI水平=1除外)和两种方法联合重建的每个序列中的图像噪声、对比度、清晰度和整体图像质量给出的主观评分均高于原始图像(均<0.05)。然而,AIFI水平=5时图像对比度评分降低。两名放射科医生之间存在良好的观察者间一致性(均>0.75,<0.05)。经过多维度比较,在腹部MRI中使用AIFI技术进行降噪的最佳参数为:T1WI序列为传统滤波+AIFI水平=3,T2WI和双回波序列为AIFI水平=4。
在中高水平的成像去噪中,AIFI优于滤波。它是一种很有前景的降噪技术。在腹部MRI中使用AIFI的最佳参数为:T1WI序列为滤波+AIFI水平=3,T2WI和双回波序列为AIFI水平=4。