Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Recent research explores using neural networks to reconstruct undersampled magnetic resonance imaging. Because of the complexity of the artifacts in the reconstructed images, there is a need to develop task-based approaches to image quality. We compared conventional global quantitative metrics to evaluate image quality in undersampled images generated by a neural network with human observer performance in a detection task. The purpose is to study which acceleration (2×, 3×, 4×, 5×) would be chosen with the conventional metrics and compare it to the acceleration chosen by human observer performance.
Approach: We used common global metrics for evaluating image quality: the normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) and structural similarity (SSIM). These metrics are compared with a measure of image quality that incorporates a subtle signal for a specific task to allow for image quality assessment that locally evaluates the effect of undersampling on a signal. We used a U-Net to reconstruct under-sampled images with 2×, 3×, 4×, and 5× one-dimensional undersampling rates. Cross-validation was performed for a 500- and a 4000-image training set with both SSIM and MSE losses. A two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) observer study was carried out for detecting a subtle signal (small blurred disk) from images with the 4000-image training set.
Results: We found that for both loss functions, the human observer performance on the 2-AFC studies led to a choice of a 2× undersampling, but the SSIM and NRMSE led to a choice of a 3× undersampling.
Conclusions: For this detection task using a subtle small signal at the edge of detectability, SSIM and NRMSE led to an overestimate of the achievable undersampling using a U-Net before a steep loss of image quality between 2×, 3×, 4×, 5× undersampling rates when compared to the performance of human observers in the detection task.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321363 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.11.4.045503 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!