Abstract

The aim of the second quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) reconstruction challenge (Oct 2019, Seoul, Korea) was to test the accuracy of QSM dipole inversion algorithms in simulated brain data. A two-stage design was chosen for this challenge. The participants were provided with datasets of multi-echo gradient echo images synthesized from two realistic in silico head phantoms using an MR simulator. At the first stage, participants optimized QSM reconstructions without ground truth data available to mimic the clinical setting. At the second stage, ground truth data were provided for parameter optimization. Submissions were evaluated using eight numerical metrics and visual ratings. A total of 98 reconstructions were submitted for stage 1 and 47 submissions for stage 2. Iterative methods had the best quantitative metric scores, followed by deep learning and direct inversion methods. Priors derived from magnitude data improved the metric scores. Algorithms based on iterative approaches and total variation (and its derivatives) produced the best overall results. The reported results and analysis pipelines have been made public to allow researchers to compare new methods to the current state of the art. The synthetic data provide a consistent framework to test the accuracy and robustness of QSM algorithms in the presence of noise, calcifications and minor voxel dephasing effects. Total Variation-based algorithms produced the best results among all metrics. Future QSM challenges should assess whether this good performance with synthetic datasets translates to more realistic scenarios, where background fields and dipole-incompatible phase contributions are included.

Highlights

  • Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) entails the solution of an ill-p­osed, ill-­ conditioned inverse problem that relates the acquired gradient echo (GRE) phase information, reflecting magnetic field inhomogeneities, to the underlying susceptibility distribution that is the cause of the inhomogeneities.[7,8]

  • RC2 constituted a 2-s­tage challenge design based on synthetically generated brain GRE data, and yielded novel insights, which may not be obtained using an in vivo GRE acquisition

  • It aimed to overcome the shortcomings of the previous challenge, such as background field remnants, low signal-t­o-­noise ratio (SNR) and the absence of a reliable ground truth

Read more

Summary

Funding information

National Agency for Research and Development, Millennium Science Initiative Program, Grant/Award Number: NCN17_129; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: FOM-­N-­31/16PR1056; Siemens Healthineers; National Institutes of Health, Grant/Award Number: R01 EB028797, U01 EB025162, P41 EB030006 and R01 MH11; Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Grant/Award Number: PIA-­ACT192064; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant/ Award Number: UL1TR001412; Cancer Research UK Multidisciplinary Award, Grant/Award Number: C53545/A24348. Purpose: The aim of the second quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) reconstruction challenge (Oct 2019, Seoul, Korea) was to test the accuracy of QSM dipole inversion algorithms in simulated brain data. Participants optimized QSM reconstructions without ground truth data available to mimic the clinical setting. Ground truth data were provided for parameter optimization. Results: A total of 98 reconstructions were submitted for stage 1 and 47 submissions for stage 2. Iterative methods had the best quantitative metric scores, followed by deep learning and direct inversion methods. Priors derived from magnitude data improved the metric scores. Algorithms based on iterative approaches and total variation (and its derivatives) produced the best overall results. The reported results and analysis pipelines have been made public to allow researchers to compare new methods to the current state of the art. All committee members contributed to this paper, listed here in alphabetical order

Conclusion
| INTRODUCTION
| METHODS
| RESULTS
| DISCUSSION
Findings
| CONCLUSIONS
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call