4.6 Article

Optimized Multistable Stochastic Resonance for the Enhancement of Pituitary Microadenoma in MRI

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JBHI.2017.2715078

关键词

Microadenoma; multi-objective ant lion optimization; multi-stable stochastic resonance; pituitary gland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the modality of choice as far as imaging diagnosis of pathologies in the pituitary gland is concerned. Furthermore, the advent of dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) has enhanced the capability of this modality in detecting minute benign but endocrinologically significant tumors called microadenoma. These lesions are visible with difficulty and a low confidence level in routine MRI sequences, even after administration of intravenous gadolinium. Techniques to enhance the visualization of such foci would be an asset in improving the overall accuracy of DCE-MRI for detection of pituitary microadenomas. The present study proposes an algorithm for postprocessing DCE-MRI data using multistable stochastic resonance (MSSR) technique. Multiobjective ant lion optimization optimizes the contrast enhancement factor (CEF) and anisotropy of an image by varying the parameters associated with the dynamics of MSSR. The marked regions of interest (ROIs) are labeled as normal and microadenoma of pituitary obtained with increased level of accuracy and confidence using proposed algorithm. The increased difference between the mean intensity curves obtained using these ROIs validated the obtained subjective results. Furthermore, the proposed MSSR-based algorithm has been evaluated on standard T1 and T2 weighted BrainWeb dataset images and quantified in terms of CEF, peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR), structure similarity index measure (SSIM), and universal quality index (UQI). The obtained mean values of CEF 1.22, PSNR 27.68, SSIM 0.75, UQI 0.83 for twenty dataset images were highest among considered contrast enhancement algorithms for the comparison.

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

4.6
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