A consistency evaluation of signal-to-noise ratio in the quality assessment of human brain magnetic resonance images

BackgroundQuality assessment of medical images is highly related to the quality assurance, image interpretation and decision making. As to magnetic resonance (MR) images, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is routinely used as a quality indicator, while little knowledge is known of its consistency regarding different observers.MethodsIn total, 192, 88, 76 and 55 brain images are acquired using T2*, T1, T2 and contrast-enhanced T1 (T1C) weighted MR imaging sequences, respectively. To each imaging protocol, the consistency of SNR measurement is verified between and within two observers, and white matter (WM) and cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) are alternately used as the tissue region of interest (TOI) for SNR measurement. The procedure is repeated on another day within 30 days. At first, overlapped voxels in TOIs are quantified with Dice index. Then, test-retest reliability is assessed in terms of intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). After that, four models (BIQI, BLIINDS-II, BRISQUE and NIQE) primarily used for the quality assessment of natural images are borrowed to predict the quality of MR images. And in the end, the correlation between SNR values and predicted results is analyzed.ResultsTo the same TOI in each MR imaging sequence, less than 6% voxels are overlapped between manual delineations. In the quality estimation of MR images, statistical analysis indicates no significant difference between observers (Wilcoxon rank sum test, pw ≥ 0.11; paired-sample t test, pp ≥ 0.26), and good to very good intra- and inter-observer reliability are found (ICC, picc ≥ 0.74). Furthermore, Pearson correlation coefficient (rp) suggests that SNRwm correlates strongly with BIQI, BLIINDS-II and BRISQUE in T2* (rp ≥ 0.78), BRISQUE and NIQE in T1 (rp ≥ 0.77), BLIINDS-II in T2 (rp ≥ 0.68) and BRISQUE and NIQE in T1C (rp ≥ 0.62) weighted MR images, while SNRcsf correlates strongly with BLIINDS-II in T2* (rp ≥ 0.63) and in T2 (rp ≥ 0.64) weighted MR images.ConclusionsThe consistency of SNR measurement is validated regarding various observers and MR imaging protocols. When SNR measurement performs as the quality indicator of MR images, BRISQUE and BLIINDS-II can be conditionally used for the automated quality estimation of human brain MR images.

[1]  Raveendran Paramesran,et al.  Review of medical image quality assessment , 2016, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[2]  Wei Huang,et al.  Signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio and pharmacokinetic modeling considerations in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[3]  Peter Kellman,et al.  Image reconstruction in SNR units: A general method for SNR measurement † , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[4]  Alan C. Bovik,et al.  No-Reference Image Quality Assessment in the Spatial Domain , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[5]  F. Galton.  Regression Towards Mediocrity in Hereditary Stature. , 1886 .

[6]  Markus Barth,et al.  Contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) as a quality parameter in fMRI , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  Lei Wang,et al.  A shallow convolutional neural network for blind image sharpness assessment , 2017, PloS one.

[8]  Yaoqin Xie,et al.  Interactive contour delineation and refinement in treatment planning of image‐guided radiation therapy , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[9]  D. Kerby.  The Simple Difference Formula: An Approach to Teaching Nonparametric Correlation1: , 2014 .

[10]  Pamela C. Cosman,et al.  Evaluating quality of compressed medical images: SNR, subjective rating, and diagnostic accuracy , 1994, Proc. IEEE.

[11]  David L. Wilson,et al.  Computational and human observer image quality evaluation of low dose, knowledge-based CT iterative reconstruction. , 2015, Medical physics.

[12]  Ming Li,et al.  Gaussian diffusion sinogram inpainting for X-ray CT metal artifact reduction , 2017, Biomedical engineering online.

[13]  M Fuderer,et al.  The information content of MR images. , 1988, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[14]  D. W. Zimmerman.  Teacher’s Corner: A Note on Interpretation of the Paired-Samples t Test , 1997 .

[15]  F. Wilcoxon.  Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[16]  R M Harrison,et al.  Quality assurance for MRI: practical experience. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  Bensheng Qiu,et al.  Compressed sensing MRI via fast linearized preconditioned alternating direction method of multipliers , 2017, Biomedical engineering online.

[18]  Lizheng Lu,et al.  A note on curvature variation minimizing cubic Hermite interpolants , 2015, Appl. Math. Comput..

[19]  Ketty Savino,et al.  A Study on Quality Assessment for Medical Ultrasound Video Compressed via HEVC , 2014, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.

[20]  Shao De Yu,et al.  Linear-fitting-based similarity coefficient map for tissue dissimilarity analysis in -w magnetic resonance imaging* , 2015 .

[21]  Rebecca Fahrig,et al.  Optimized Detector Angular Configuration Increases the Sensitivity of X-ray Fluorescence Computed Tomography (XFCT) , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[22]  Alan C. Bovik,et al.  A Two-Step Framework for Constructing Blind Image Quality Indices , 2010, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[23]  D. Ortendahl,et al.  Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging. , 1989, Radiology.

[24]  B. Murphy,et al.  Signal-to-noise measures for magnetic resonance imagers. , 1993, Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

[25]  R. Henkelman.  Measurement of signal intensities in the presence of noise in MR images. , 1985, Medical physics.

[26]  R M Harrison,et al.  A comparison of two methods for measuring the signal to noise ratio on MR images , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  Yaoqin Xie,et al.  Nonrigid Registration of Lung CT Images Based on Tissue Features , 2013, Comput. Math. Methods Medicine.

[28]  Andrew A. Goldenberg,et al.  Signal-to-noise ratio evaluation of magnetic resonance images in the presence of an ultrasonic motor , 2017, Biomedical engineering online.

[29]  Tung-Wu Lu,et al.  Test–retest reliability of mandibular morphology measurements on cone-beam computed tomography-synthesized cephalograms with random head positioning errors , 2017, Biomedical engineering online.

[30]  Weisi Lin,et al.  A Fast Reliable Image Quality Predictor by Fusing Micro- and Macro-Structures , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics.

[31]  Jianhua Chen,et al.  Rayleigh-maximum-likelihood bilateral filter for ultrasound image enhancement , 2017, BioMedical Engineering OnLine.

[32]  R. Paramesran,et al.  Correlation between subjective and objective assessment of magnetic resonance (MR) images. , 2016, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[33]  Yaoqin Xie,et al.  A novel design of ultrafast micro-CT system based on carbon nanotube: A feasibility study in phantom. , 2016, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[34]  Yaoqin Xie,et al.  An edge-directed interpolation method for fetal spine MR images , 2013, Biomedical engineering online.

[35]  Alan C. Bovik,et al.  Making a “Completely Blind” Image Quality Analyzer , 2013, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[36]  D. Giavarina.  Understanding Bland Altman analysis , 2015, Biochemia medica.

[37]  Heshalini Rajagopal,et al.  Modified-BRISQUE as no reference image quality assessment for structural MR images. , 2017, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[38]  Yaoqin Xie,et al.  Efficient Segmentation of a Breast in B-Mode Ultrasound Tomography Using Three-Dimensional GrabCut (GC3D) , 2017, Sensors.

[39]  Jean-Philippe Thiran,et al.  Automatic quality assessment in structural brain magnetic resonance imaging , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[40]  Patrick Le Callet,et al.  A multi-slice model observer for medical image quality assessment , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[41]  Christophe Charrier,et al.  DCT statistics model-based blind image quality assessment , 2011, 2011 18th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing.

[42]  Eero Salli,et al.  An Automatic Image Processing Workflow for Daily Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality Assurance , 2016, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[43]  Jian Zheng,et al.  Non-rigid MR-TRUS image registration for image-guided prostate biopsy using correlation ratio-based mutual information , 2017, Biomedical engineering online.

[44]  G Y Sandhu,et al.  Frequency domain ultrasound waveform tomography: breast imaging using a ring transducer , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[45]  Yaoqin Xie,et al.  Iterative image-domain ring artifact removal in cone-beam CT , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[46]  Giampaolo Ferraioli,et al.  A 3D MRI denoising algorithm based on Bayesian theory , 2017, BioMedical Engineering OnLine.

[47]  Lei Xing,et al.  Automating Position and Timing Quality Assurance for High Dose Rate Brachytherapy Using Radioluminescent Phosphors and Optical Imaging , 2016 .

[48]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Practical approaches to the evaluation of signal‐to‐noise ratio performance with parallel imaging: Application with cardiac imaging and a 32‐channel cardiac coil , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[49]  Lei Zhu,et al.  Scatter correction for full-fan volumetric CT using a stationary beam blocker in a single full scan. , 2011, Medical physics.

[50]  Joshua H. Park,et al.  Numerical evaluation of image homogeneity, signal‐to‐noise ratio, and specific absorption rate for human brain imaging at 1.5, 3, 7, 10.5, and 14T in an 8‐channel transmit/receive array , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[51]  Yves Rosseel,et al.  On the Definition of Signal-To-Noise Ratio and Contrast-To-Noise Ratio for fMRI Data , 2013, PloS one.

[52]  D. W. Zimmerman.  Teacher’s Corner: A Note on Interpretation of the Paired-Samples t Test , 1997 .

[53]  Christophe Charrier,et al.  A DCT Statistics-Based Blind Image Quality Index , 2010, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.