External hardware and sensors, for improved MRI

Complex engineered systems are often equipped with suites of sensors and ancillary devices that monitor their performance and maintenance needs. MRI scanners are no different in this regard. Some of the ancillary devices available to support MRI equipment, the ones of particular interest here, have the distinction of actually participating in the image acquisition process itself. Most commonly, such devices are used to monitor physiological motion or variations in the scanner's imaging fields, allowing the imaging and/or reconstruction process to adapt as imaging conditions change. “Classic” examples include electrocardiography (ECG) leads and respiratory bellows to monitor cardiac and respiratory motion, which have been standard equipment in scan rooms since the early days of MRI. Since then, many additional sensors and devices have been proposed to support MRI acquisitions. The main physical properties that they measure may be primarily “mechanical” (eg acceleration, speed, and torque), “acoustic” (sound and ultrasound), “optical” (light and infrared), or “electromagnetic” in nature. A review of these ancillary devices, as currently available in clinical and research settings, is presented here. In our opinion, these devices are not in competition with each other: as long as they provide useful and unique information, do not interfere with each other and are not prohibitively cumbersome to use, they might find their proper place in future suites of sensors. In time, MRI acquisitions will likely include a plurality of complementary signals. A little like the microbiome that provides genetic diversity to organisms, these devices can provide signal diversity to MRI acquisitions and enrich measurements. Machine-learning (ML) algorithms are well suited at combining diverse input signals toward coherent outputs, and they could make use of all such information toward improved MRI capabilities

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in the large population-based german national cohort study: predictive capability of automated image quality assessment for protocol repetitions

BACKGROUND: Reproducible image quality is of high relevance for large cohort studies and can be challenging for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Automated image quality assessment may contribute to conducting radiologic studies effectively. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to assess protocol repetition frequency in population-based whole-body MRI along with its effect on examination time and to examine the applicability of automated image quality assessment for predicting decision-making regarding repeated acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All participants enrolled in the prospective, multicenter German National Cohort (NAKO) study who underwent whole-body MRI at 1 of 5 sites from 2014 to 2016 were included in this analysis (n = 11,347). A standardized examination program of 12 protocols was used. Acquisitions were carried out by certified radiologic technologists, who were authorized to repeat protocols based on their visual perception of image quality. Eleven image quality parameters were derived fully automatically from the acquired images, and their discrimination ability regarding baseline acquisitions and repetitions was tested. RESULTS: At least 1 protocol was repeated in 12% (n = 1359) of participants, and more than 1 protocol in 1.6% (n = 181). The repetition frequency differed across protocols (P < 0.001), imaging sites (P < 0.001), and over the study period (P < 0.001). The mean total scan time was 62.6 minutes in participants without and 67.4 minutes in participants with protocol repetitions (mean difference, 4.8 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 4.5-5.2 minutes). Ten of the automatically derived image quality parameters were individually retrospectively predictive for the repetition of particular protocols; for instance, "signal-to-noise ratio" alone provided an area under the curve of 0.65 (P < 0.001) for repetition of the Cardio Cine SSFP SAX protocol. Combinations generally improved prediction ability, as exemplified by "image sharpness" plus "foreground ratio" yielding an area under the curve of 0.89 (P < 0.001) for repetition of the Neuro T1w 3D MPRAGE protocol, versus 0.85 (P < 0.001) and 0.68 (P < 0.001) as individual parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging protocol repetitions were necessary in approximately 12% of scans even in the highly standardized setting of a large cohort study. Automated image quality assessment shows predictive value for the technologists' decision to perform protocol repetitions and has the potential to improve imaging efficiency

Automated image quality assessment for selecting among multiple magnetic resonance image acquisitions in the German National Cohort study

Abstract In magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the perception of substandard image quality may prompt repetition of the respective image acquisition protocol. Subsequently selecting the preferred high-quality image data from a series of acquisitions can be challenging. An automated workflow may facilitate and improve this selection. We therefore aimed to investigate the applicability of an automated image quality assessment for the prediction of the subjectively preferred image acquisition. Our analysis included data from 11,347 participants with whole-body MRI examinations performed as part of the ongoing prospective multi-center German National Cohort (NAKO) study. Trained radiologic technologists repeated any of the twelve examination protocols due to induced setup errors and/or subjectively unsatisfactory image quality and chose a preferred acquisition from the resultant series. Up to 11 quantitative image quality parameters were automatically derived from all acquisitions. Regularized regression and standard estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Controlling for setup variations in 2342 series of two or more acquisitions, technologists preferred the repetition over the initial acquisition in 1116 of 1396 series in which the initial setup was retained (79.9%, range across protocols: 73–100%). Image quality parameters then commonly showed statistically significant differences between chosen and discarded acquisitions. In regularized regression across all protocols, ‘structured noise maximum’ was the strongest predictor for the technologists’ choice, followed by ‘N/2 ghosting average’. Combinations of the automatically derived parameters provided an area under the ROC curve between 0.51 and 0.74 for the prediction of the technologists’ choice. It is concluded that automated image quality assessment can, despite considerable performance differences between protocols and anatomical regions, contribute substantially to identifying the subjective preference in a series of MRI acquisitions and thus provide effective decision support to readers