Cargando…
Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning
PURPOSE: Clinical applicability of renal arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI is hampered because of time consuming and observer dependent post‐processing, including manual segmentation of the cortex to obtain cortical renal blood flow (RBF). Machine learning has proven its value in medical image segmen...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9297892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34672029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29016 |
_version_ | 1784750573945356288 |
---|---|
author | Bones, Isabell K. Bos, Clemens Moonen, Chrit Hendrikse, Jeroen van Stralen, Marijn |
author_facet | Bones, Isabell K. Bos, Clemens Moonen, Chrit Hendrikse, Jeroen van Stralen, Marijn |
author_sort | Bones, Isabell K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Clinical applicability of renal arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI is hampered because of time consuming and observer dependent post‐processing, including manual segmentation of the cortex to obtain cortical renal blood flow (RBF). Machine learning has proven its value in medical image segmentation, including the kidneys. This study presents a fully automatic workflow for renal cortex perfusion quantification by including machine learning‐based segmentation. METHODS: Fully automatic workflow was achieved by construction of a cascade of 3 U‐nets to replace manual segmentation in ASL quantification. All 1.5T ASL‐MRI data, including M(0), T(1), and ASL label‐control images, from 10 healthy volunteers was used for training (dataset 1). Trained cascade performance was validated on 4 additional volunteers (dataset 2). Manual segmentations were generated by 2 observers, yielding reference and second observer segmentations. To validate the intended use of the automatic segmentations, manual and automatic RBF values in mL/min/100 g were compared. RESULTS: Good agreement was found between automatic and manual segmentations on dataset 1 (dice score = 0.78 ± 0.04), which was in line with inter‐observer variability (dice score = 0.77 ± 0.02). Good agreement was confirmed on dataset 2 (dice score = 0.75 ± 0.03). Moreover, similar cortical RBF was obtained with automatic or manual segmentations, on average and at subject level; with 211 ± 31 mL/min/100 g and 208 ± 31 mL/min/100 g (P < .05), respectively, with narrow limits of agreement at −11 and 4.6 mL/min/100 g. RBF accuracy with automated segmentations was confirmed on dataset 2. CONCLUSION: Our proposed method automates ASL quantification without compromising RBF accuracy. With quick processing and without observer dependence, renal ASL‐MRI is more attractive for clinical application as well as for longitudinal and multi‐center studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9297892 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92978922022-07-21 Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning Bones, Isabell K. Bos, Clemens Moonen, Chrit Hendrikse, Jeroen van Stralen, Marijn Magn Reson Med Technical Notes—Imaging Methodology PURPOSE: Clinical applicability of renal arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI is hampered because of time consuming and observer dependent post‐processing, including manual segmentation of the cortex to obtain cortical renal blood flow (RBF). Machine learning has proven its value in medical image segmentation, including the kidneys. This study presents a fully automatic workflow for renal cortex perfusion quantification by including machine learning‐based segmentation. METHODS: Fully automatic workflow was achieved by construction of a cascade of 3 U‐nets to replace manual segmentation in ASL quantification. All 1.5T ASL‐MRI data, including M(0), T(1), and ASL label‐control images, from 10 healthy volunteers was used for training (dataset 1). Trained cascade performance was validated on 4 additional volunteers (dataset 2). Manual segmentations were generated by 2 observers, yielding reference and second observer segmentations. To validate the intended use of the automatic segmentations, manual and automatic RBF values in mL/min/100 g were compared. RESULTS: Good agreement was found between automatic and manual segmentations on dataset 1 (dice score = 0.78 ± 0.04), which was in line with inter‐observer variability (dice score = 0.77 ± 0.02). Good agreement was confirmed on dataset 2 (dice score = 0.75 ± 0.03). Moreover, similar cortical RBF was obtained with automatic or manual segmentations, on average and at subject level; with 211 ± 31 mL/min/100 g and 208 ± 31 mL/min/100 g (P < .05), respectively, with narrow limits of agreement at −11 and 4.6 mL/min/100 g. RBF accuracy with automated segmentations was confirmed on dataset 2. CONCLUSION: Our proposed method automates ASL quantification without compromising RBF accuracy. With quick processing and without observer dependence, renal ASL‐MRI is more attractive for clinical application as well as for longitudinal and multi‐center studies. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-10-20 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9297892/ /pubmed/34672029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29016 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Technical Notes—Imaging Methodology Bones, Isabell K. Bos, Clemens Moonen, Chrit Hendrikse, Jeroen van Stralen, Marijn Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning |
title | Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning |
title_full | Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning |
title_fullStr | Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning |
title_full_unstemmed | Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning |
title_short | Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning |
title_sort | workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using asl‐mri and machine learning |
topic | Technical Notes—Imaging Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9297892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34672029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29016 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bonesisabellk workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning AT bosclemens workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning AT moonenchrit workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning AT hendriksejeroen workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning AT vanstralenmarijn workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning |