Effects of Magnetic Resonance Image Interpolation on the Results of Texture-Based Pattern Classification: A Phantom Study

Objectives:To (1) determine whether magnetic resonance (MR) image interpolation at the pixel or k-space level can improve the results of texture-based pattern classification, and (2) compare the effects of image interpolation on texture features of different categories, with regard to their ability to distinguish between different patterns. Materials and Methods:We obtained T2-weighted, multislice multiecho MR images of 2 sets of each 3 polystyrene spheres and agar gel (PSAG) phantoms with different nodular patterns (sphere diameter: PSAG-1, 0.8-1.25 mm; PSAG-2, 1.25-2.0 mm; PSAG-3, 2.0-3.15 mm), using a 3.0 Tesla scanner equipped with a dedicated microimaging gradient insert. Image datasets, which consisted of 20 consecutive axial slices each, were obtained with a constant field of view (30 × 30 mm2), but with variations of matrix size (MTX): 16 × 16; 32 × 32; 64 × 64; 128 × 128; and 256 × 256. Original images were interpolated to higher matrix sizes (up to 256 × 256) by means of linear and cubic B-spline (pixel level) as well as zero-fill (k-space level) interpolation. For both original and interpolated image datasets, texture features derived from the co-occurrence (COC) and run-length matrix (RUN), absolute gradient (GRA), autoregressive model, and wavelet transform (WAV) were calculated independently. Based on the 3 best texture features of each category, as determined by calculation of Fisher coefficients using images from the first set of PSAG phantoms (training dataset), k-means clustering was performed to separate PSAG-1, PSAG-2, and PSAG-3 images belonging to the second set of phantoms (test dataset). This was done independently for all original and interpolated image datasets. Rates of misclassified data vectors were used as primary outcome measures. Results:For images based on a very low original resolution (MTX = 16 × 16), misclassification rates remained high, despite the use of interpolation. For higher resolution images (MTX = 32 × 32 and 64 × 64), interpolation enhanced the ability of texture features, in all categories except WAV, to discriminate between the 3 phantoms. This positive effect was particularly pronounced for COC and RUN features, and to a lesser degree, also GRA features. No consistent improvements, and even some negative effects, were observed for WAV features, after interpolation. Although there was no clear superiority of any single interpolation techniques at very low resolution (MTX = 16 × 16), zero-fill interpolation outperformed the two pixel interpolation techniques, for images based on higher original resolutions (MTX = 32 × 32 and 64 × 64). We observed the most considerable improvements after interpolation by a factor of 2 or 4. Conclusions:MR image interpolation has the potential to improve the results of pattern classification, based on COC, RUN, and GRA features. Unless spatial resolution is very poor, zero-filling is the interpolation technique of choice, with a recommended maximum interpolation factor of 4.

[1]  Doaa Mahmoud-Ghoneim,et al.  Texture analysis of magnetic resonance images of rat muscles during atrophy and regeneration. , 2006, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[2]  Ewald Moser,et al.  High-Resolution Diffusivity Imaging at 3.0 T for the Detection of Degenerative Changes: A Trypsin-Based Arthritis Model , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[3]  David W Holdsworth,et al.  Four Dimensional Intravenous Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Subtraction Angiography: In Vitro Study of Feasibility , 2008, Investigative radiology.

[4]  Frithjof Kruggel,et al.  Texture-based segmentation of diffuse lesions of the brain’s white matter , 2008, NeuroImage.

[5]  H. Fujita,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis: preliminary evaluation of MRI texture analysis using the finite difference method and an artificial neural network. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  Gabriela Castellano,et al.  Texture Analysis of Hippocampal Sclerosis , 2003, Epilepsia.

[7]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[8]  M.,et al.  Statistical and Structural Approaches to Texture , 2022 .

[9]  M. Unser,et al.  Interpolation revisited [medical images application] , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  T. J. Dennis,et al.  Textured image segmentation by context enhanced clustering , 1994 .

[11]  Frithjof Kruggel,et al.  Gender and age effects in structural brain asymmetry as measured by MRI texture analysis , 2003, NeuroImage.

[12]  C.E. Shannon,et al.  Communication in the Presence of Noise , 1949, Proceedings of the IRE.

[13]  Michael Unser,et al.  Splines: a perfect fit for signal and image processing , 1999, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[14]  E. Meijering A chronology of interpolation: from ancient astronomy to modern signal and image processing , 2002, Proc. IEEE.

[15]  H. Imhof,et al.  Autocorrelation analysis of bone structure , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[16]  F. Cendes,et al.  Texture analysis of medical images. , 2004, Clinical radiology.

[17]  Rama Chellappa,et al.  Estimation and choice of neighbors in spatial-interaction models of images , 1983, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[18]  Patrick C. Chen,et al.  Segmentation by texture using a co-occurrence matrix and a split-and-merge algorithm☆ , 1979 .

[19]  A Ertl,et al.  High-resolution polymer gel dosimetry by parameter selective MR-microimaging on a whole body scanner at 3T. , 2001, Medical physics.

[20]  Chris R Chatwin,et al.  Three-Dimensional Selective-Scale Texture Analysis of Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiograms , 2008, Investigative radiology.

[21]  Milan Hájek,et al.  Texture analysis of human liver , 2002, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[22]  G. Collewet,et al.  Influence of MRI acquisition protocols and image intensity normalization methods on texture classification. , 2004, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[23]  Mary M. Galloway,et al.  Texture analysis using gray level run lengths , 1974 .

[24]  J. Seo,et al.  Texture-Based Quantification of Pulmonary Emphysema on High-Resolution Computed Tomography: Comparison With Density-Based Quantification and Correlation With Pulmonary Function Test , 2008, Investigative radiology.

[25]  Michal Strzelecki,et al.  FEATURE EVALUATION OF TEXTURE TEST OBJECTS FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING , 2001 .

[26]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Automated detection of focal cortical dysplasia lesions using computational models of their MRI characteristics and texture analysis , 2003, NeuroImage.

[27]  Jian Fan,et al.  Texture Classification by Wavelet Packet Signatures , 1993, MVA.

[28]  J. A. Hartigan,et al.  A k-means clustering algorithm , 1979 .

[29]  M. Stuber,et al.  High-Resolution Three-Dimensional Aortic Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Quantitative Vessel Wall Characterization of Different Atherosclerotic Stages in a Rabbit Model , 2007, Investigative radiology.

[30]  Milan Hájek,et al.  Phantoms for texture analysis of MR images. Long-term and multi-center study. , 2004, Medical physics.

[31]  Debiao Li,et al.  Contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0-T: a comparative study with X-ray angiography in a single center. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[32]  Michael A. Lachance,et al.  An introduction to splines for use in computer graphics and geometric modeling , 1990 .

[33]  Andrzej Materka,et al.  Texture analysis for magnetic resonance imaging , 2006 .

[34]  J. Carr,et al.  Contrast-Enhanced Whole-Heart Coronary Magnetic Resonance Angiography at 3.0 T: Comparison With Steady-State Free Precession Technique at 1.5 T , 2008, Investigative radiology.

[35]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of convolution-based methods for medical image interpolation , 2001, Medical Image Anal..

[36]  Sharmila Majumdar,et al.  Wavelet-based characterization of vertebral trabecular bone structure from magnetic resonance images at 3 T compared with micro-computed tomographic measurements. , 2007, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[37]  M. Giger,et al.  Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance images , 2007, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[38]  J. Finn,et al.  3.0 Tesla High Spatial Resolution Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography (CE-MRA) of the Pulmonary Circulation: Initial Experience With a 32-Channel Phased Array Coil Using a High Relaxivity Contrast Agent , 2007, Investigative radiology.

[39]  Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography: P792 Blood Pool Agent Versus Gd-DOTA in Rabbits at 3.0 T Versus 1.5 T , 2007, Investigative radiology.

[40]  M. Unser,et al.  Interpolation Revisited , 2000, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[41]  P. Revesz Interpolation and Approximation , 2010 .

[42]  Ali S. Hadi,et al.  Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Chster Analysis , 1991 .

[43]  Stéphane Mallat,et al.  Multifrequency channel decompositions of images and wavelet models , 1989, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[44]  Tahsin Kurc,et al.  Malignant‐lesion segmentation using 4D co‐occurrence texture analysis applied to dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance breast image data , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.