Inscrição na biblioteca: Guest
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering

Publicou 6 edições por ano

ISSN Imprimir: 0278-940X

ISSN On-line: 1943-619X

SJR: 0.262 SNIP: 0.372 CiteScore™:: 2.2 H-Index: 56

Indexed in

Quality Assessment in Magnetic Resonance Images

Volume 38, Edição 2, 2010, pp. 127-141
DOI: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v38.i2.20
Get accessGet access

RESUMO

Assessing quality of medical images is critical because the subsequent course of actions depend on it. Extensive use of clinical magnetic resonance (MR) imaging warrants a study in image indices used for MR images. The quality of MR images assumes particular significance in the determination of their reliability for diagnostics, response to therapies, synchronization across different imaging cycles, optimization of interventional imaging, and image restoration. In this paper, we review various techniques developed for the assessment of MR image quality. The reported quality indices can be broadly classified as subjective/objective, automatic/semi-automatic, region-of-interest/non-region-of-interest−based, full-reference/no-reference and HVS incorporated/non-HVS incorporated. The trade-of across the various indices lies in the computational complexity, assumptions, repeatability, and resemblance to human perception. Because images are eventually viewed by the human eye, it is found that it is important to incorporate aspects of human visual response, sensitivity, and characteristics in computing quality indices. Additionally, no-reference metrics are the most relevant due to the lack of availability of a golden standard against which images could be compared. Techniques that are objective and automatic are preferred for their repeatability and to eliminate avoidable errors due to factors like stress, which arise in human intervention.

CITADO POR
  1. Rofsky Neil M., The importance of image quality: In the eyes of the beholder?, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 41, 4, 2015. Crossref

  2. Singh Vimal, Tewfik Ahmed H., Local error detection in sparse magnetic resonance imaging, 2013 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing, 2013. Crossref

  3. Chow Li Sze, Paramesran Raveendran, Review of medical image quality assessment, Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 27, 2016. Crossref

  4. Kayvanrad Mohammad, Lin Amy, Joshi Rohit, Chiu Jack, Peters Terry, Diagnostic quality assessment of compressed sensing accelerated magnetic resonance neuroimaging, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 44, 2, 2016. Crossref

  5. Osadebey M. E., Pedersen Marius, Arnold Douglas, Wendel-Mitoraj Katrina, The spatial statistics of structural magnetic resonance images: application to post-acquisition quality assessment of brain MRI images, The Imaging Science Journal, 65, 8, 2017. Crossref

  6. Ehman Morgan O., Bao Zhonghao, Stiving Scott O., Kasam Mallik, Lanners Dianna, Peterson Teresa, Jonsgaard Renee, Carter Rickey, McGee Kiaran P., Automated low‐contrast pattern recognition algorithm for magnetic resonance image quality assessment, Medical Physics, 44, 8, 2017. Crossref

  7. Küstner Thomas, Liebgott Annika, Mauch Lukas, Martirosian Petros, Bamberg Fabian, Nikolaou Konstantin, Yang Bin, Schick Fritz, Gatidis Sergios, Automated reference-free detection of motion artifacts in magnetic resonance images, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 31, 2, 2018. Crossref

  8. Deka Bhabesh, Datta Sumit, CS-MRI Benchmarks and Current Trends, in Compressed Sensing Magnetic Resonance Image Reconstruction Algorithms, 9, 2019. Crossref

  9. Fan Bing, Li Mei-jiao, Wang Xiao-ying, Xu Yu-feng, Li Fei-yu, Zhang Lai-yun, Jiang Jian, Jiang Yan-yan, Time-Dependent Changes in the Magnetic Resonance Detection of Brain Metastases Using Single-Dose Gadobutrol, Iranian Journal of Radiology, 15, 1, 2018. Crossref

  10. Obuchowicz Rafal, Oszust Mariusz, Piorkowski Adam, Interobserver variability in quality assessment of magnetic resonance images, BMC Medical Imaging, 20, 1, 2020. Crossref

  11. Bielecka Marzena, Bielecki Andrzej, Obuchowicz Rafał, Piórkowski Adam, Universal Measure for Medical Image Quality Evaluation Based on Gradient Approach, in Computational Science – ICCS 2020, 12140, 2020. Crossref

  12. Kim Jun Ho, Costa Alan J.M., Queirós José Lincoln, No‐Cortes Juliana, Nishimura Danielle A., Murakami Shumei, Abdala‐Junior Reinaldo, Machado Daniel, Costa Claudio, Pinhata‐Baptista Otavio H., Burgoa Shaban M., Son Andrea, Pinheiro Lucas R., Bianchi Danilo M., Alcantara Allan R., Cortes Arthur R.G., Computer‐Aided Design (CAD), in Digital Dentistry, 2022. Crossref

  13. Brablik J., Ladrova Martina, Vilimek Dominik, Kolarik Jakub, Kahankova Radana, Hanzlikova Pavla, Nedoma Jan, Behbehani Khosrow, Fajkus Marcel, Vojtisek Lubomir, Martinek Radek, A Comparison of Alternative Approaches to MR Cardiac Triggering: A Pilot Study at 3 Tesla, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 26, 6, 2022. Crossref

  14. Tisdall M. Dylan, Küstner Thomas, Metrics for motion and MR quality assessment, in Motion Correction in MR - Correction of Position, Motion, and Dynamic Field Changes, 6, 2022. Crossref

Portal Digital Begell Biblioteca digital da Begell eBooks Diários Referências e Anais Coleções de pesquisa Políticas de preços e assinaturas Begell House Contato Language English 中文 Русский Português German French Spain