4.7 Article

Fast Image Reconstruction With L2-Regularization

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 181-191

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24365

关键词

regularization; susceptibility mapping; diffusion imaging; spectroscopic imaging; lipid suppression

资金

  1. NIH [R01 EB007942]
  2. NIBIB [K99EB012107, R01EB006847, K99/R00 EB008129]
  3. NCRR [P41RR14075]
  4. NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research [U01MH093765]
  5. Siemens Healthcare
  6. Siemens-MIT Alliance
  7. MIT-CIMIT Medical Engineering Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We introduce L2-regularized reconstruction algorithms with closed-form solutions that achieve dramatic computational speed-up relative to state of the art L1- and L2-based iterative algorithms while maintaining similar image quality for various applications in MRI reconstruction. Materials and Methods: We compare fast L2-based methods to state of the art algorithms employing iterative L1- and L2-regularization in numerical phantom and in vivo data in three applications; (i) Fast Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM), (ii) Lipid artifact suppression in Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging (MRSI), and (iii) Diffusion Spectrum Imaging (DSI). In all cases, proposed L2-based methods are compared with the state of the art algorithms, and two to three orders of magnitude speed up is demonstrated with similar reconstruction quality. Results: The closed-form solution developed for regularized QSM allows processing of a three-dimensional volume under 5 s, the proposed lipid suppression algorithm takes under 1 s to reconstruct single-slice MRSI data, while the PCA based DSI algorithm estimates diffusion propagators from undersampled q-space for a single slice under 30 s, all running in Matlab using a standard workstation. Conclusion: For the applications considered herein, closed-form L2-regularization can be a faster alternative to its iterative counterpart or L1-based iterative algorithms, without compromising image quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据