It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in inexpensive low magnetic field (< 0.3 T) MRI systems mainly due to advances in magnet, coil and gradient set designs. Most of these advances have focused on improving hardware and signal acquisition strategies, and far less on the use of advanced image reconstruction methods to improve attainable image quality at low field. We describe here the use of our end-to-end deep neural network approach (AUTOMAP) to improve the image quality of highly noise-corrupted low-field MRI data. We compare the performance of this approach to two additional state-of-the-art denoising pipelines. We find that AUTOMAP improves image reconstruction of data acquired on two very different low-field MRI systems: human brain data acquired at 6.5 mT, and plant root data acquired at 47 mT, demonstrating SNR gains above Fourier reconstruction by factors of 1.5- to 4.5-fold, and 3-fold, respectively. In these applications, AUTOMAP outperformed two different contemporary image-based denoising algorithms, and suppressed noise-like spike artifacts in the reconstructed images. The impact of domain-specific training corpora on the reconstruction performance is discussed. The AUTOMAP approach to image reconstruction will enable significant image quality improvements at low-field, especially in highly noise-corrupted environments.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Massachusetts General Hospital, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Charlestown, USA (GRID:grid.32224.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 0386 9924); Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:000000041936754X)
2 Texas A&M University, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, College Station, USA (GRID:grid.264756.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 4687 2082)
3 Massachusetts General Hospital, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Charlestown, USA (GRID:grid.32224.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 0386 9924); Boston University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.189504.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7558)
4 Massachusetts General Hospital, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Charlestown, USA (GRID:grid.32224.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 0386 9924); Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:000000041936754X); Harvard University, Department of Physics, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:000000041936754X)