Advertisement

Image Quality Assessments

  • Medha JunejaEmail author
  • Mechthild Bode-Hofmann
  • Khay Sun Haong
  • Steffen Meißner
  • Viola Merkel
  • Johannes Vogt
  • Nobert Wilke
  • Anja Wolff
  • Thomas Hartkens
Conference paper
Part of the Informatik aktuell book series (INFORMAT)

Zusammenfassung

Deep learning with Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) requires large number of training and test data sets which involves usually time-consuming visual inspection of medical image data. Recently, crowdsourcing methods have been proposed to gain such large training sets from untrained observers. In this paper, we propose to establish a lightweight method within the daily routine of radiologists in order to collect simple image quality annotations on a large scale. In multiple diagnostic centres, we analyse the acceptance rate of the radiologists and whether a substantial total number of professional annotations can be acquired to be used for deep learning later. Using a simple control panel with three buttons, 6 radiologists in 5 imaging centres assessed the image quality within their daily routine. Altogether, 1527 DICOM image studies (MR, CT, and X-ray) have been subjectively assessed in the first 70 days which demonstrates that a considerable number of training data sets can be collected with such a method in short time. The acceptance rate of the radiologists indicates that more data sets could be acquired if corresponding incentives are introduced as discussed in the paper. Since the proposed method is incorporated in the daily routine of radiologists, it can be easily scaled to even more number of professional observers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Gardner EA, Ellis JH, Hyde RJ, et al. Detection of degradation of magnetic resonance (MR) images: comparison of an automated MR image-quality analysis system with trained human observers. Acad Radiol. 1995;2(4):277–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rao TVN, Govardhan A. Assessment of diverse quality metrics for medical images including mammography. Int J Comput Appl. 2013;83(4).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Esteban O, Birman D, Schaer M, et al. MRIQC: Advancing the automatic prediction of image quality in MRI from unseen sites. PloS one. 2017;12(9):e0184661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Esses SJ, Lu X, Zhao T, et al. Automated image quality evaluation of T2-weighted liver MRI utilizing deep learning architecture. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47(3):723–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keshavan A, Yeatman J, Rokem A. Combining citizen science and deep learning to amplify expertise in neuroimaging. bioRxiv. 2018; p. 363382.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esteban O, Blair RW, Nielson DM, et al. Crowdsourced MRI quality metrics and expert quality annotations for training of humans and machines. bioRxiv. 2018; p. 420–984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Medha Juneja
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mechthild Bode-Hofmann
    • 2
  • Khay Sun Haong
    • 3
  • Steffen Meißner
    • 5
  • Viola Merkel
    • 4
  • Johannes Vogt
    • 1
  • Nobert Wilke
    • 3
  • Anja Wolff
    • 1
  • Thomas Hartkens
    • 1
  1. 1.Technology Labmedneo GmbHBerlinDeutschland
  2. 2.Ernst von Bergmann Poliklinik PotsdamPotsdamDeutschland
  3. 3.Radiologisches Zentrum HӧchstadtNürnberg, FürthDeutschland
  4. 4.Radiologische Praxis MerkelBerlinDeutschland
  5. 5.Sana Gesundheitszentren Berlin-Brandenburg GmbHBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations