4.4 Article

Evaluation of radiomic texture feature error due to MRI acquisition and reconstruction: A simulation study utilizing ground truth

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.05.017

关键词

Radiomics; Texture; MRI; Repeatability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to examine the dependence of image texture features on MR acquisition parameters and reconstruction using a digital MR imaging phantom. MR signal was simulated in a parallel imaging radiofrequency coil setting as well as a single element volume coil setting, with varying levels of acquisition noise, three acceleration factors, and four image reconstruction algorithms. Twenty-six texture features were measured on the simulated images, ground truth images, and clinical brain images. Subtle algorithm-dependent errors were observed on reconstructed phantom images, even in the absence of added noise. Sources of image error include Gibbs ringing at image edge gradients (tissue interfaces) and well-known artifacts due to high acceleration; two of the iterative reconstruction algorithms studied were able to mitigate these image errors. The difference of the texture features from ground truth, and their variance over reconstruction algorithm and parallel imaging acceleration factor, were compared to the clinical effect size, i.e., the feature difference between high- and low-grade tumors on Tl- and T2-weighted brain MR images of twenty glioma patients. The measured feature error (difference from ground truth) was small for some features, but substantial for others. The feature variance due to reconstruction algorithm and acceleration factor were generally smaller than the clinical effect size. Certain texture features may be preserved by MR imaging, but adequate precautions need to be taken regarding their validity and reliability. We present a general simulation framework for assessing the robustness and accuracy of radiomic textural features under various MR acquisition/reconstruction scenarios.

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

4.4
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