4.7 Article

Uncertainty Quantification in Deep MRI Reconstruction

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 239-250

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2020.3025065

关键词

Image reconstruction; Uncertainty; Magnetic resonance imaging; Biomedical imaging; Data models; Training; Probabilistic logic; Uncertainty quantification; VAE; MRI reconstruction; SURE

资金

  1. NIH [R01EB009690, R01EB026136]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to quantify the uncertainty in image recovery with DL models by developing a probabilistic reconstruction scheme using VAEs. Empirical experiments show that adversarial losses introduce more uncertainty, while recurrent unrolled nets reduce prediction uncertainty and risk.
Reliable MRI is crucial for accurate interpretation in therapeutic and diagnostic tasks. However, undersampling during MRI acquisition as well as the overparameterized and non-transparent nature of deep learning (DL) leaves substantial uncertainty about the accuracy of DL reconstruction. With this in mind, this study aims to quantify the uncertainty in image recovery with DL models. To this end, we first leverage variational autoencoders (VAEs) to develop a probabilistic reconstruction scheme that maps out (low-quality) short scans with aliasing artifacts to the diagnostic-quality ones. The VAE encodes the acquisition uncertainty in a latent code and naturally offers a posterior of the image from which one can generate pixel variance maps using Monte-Carlo sampling. Accurately predicting risk requires knowledge of the bias as well, for which we leverage Stein's Unbiased Risk Estimator (SURE) as a proxy for mean-squared-error (MSE). A range of empirical experiments is performed for Knee MRI reconstruction under different training losses (adversarial and pixel-wise) and unrolled recurrent network architectures. Our key observations indicate that: 1) adversarial losses introduce more uncertainty; and 2) recurrent unrolled nets reduce the prediction uncertainty and risk.

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