用AI方法QNet比传统LCModel更准地量化脑部代谢物。
An artificially intelligent magnetic resonance spectroscopy quantification method: Comparison between QNet and LCModel on the cloud computing platform CloudBrain-MRS
- 用深度学习QNet替代传统LCModel进行脑代谢物定量。
- QNet与LCModel在三种代谢物上一致性高,相关系数达0.775以上。
- QNet结果更接近已有文献平均值,更具合理性。
本研究旨在通过易用的智能云平台CloudBrain-MRS,对深度学习方法QNet与经典方法LCModel在人体脑部磁共振波谱(MRS)代谢物定量上的表现进行统计比较。回顾性分析了2021年9月至10月期间,两台3T MRI扫描仪Philips Ingenia和Achieva分别采集的61例和46例健康受试者前扣带皮层区域的1H磁共振波谱数据。采用Bland-Altman分析、皮尔逊相关分析及合理性评估,检验两种方法在定量结果上的一致性、线性相关性和合理性。共招募15名健康志愿者(12名女性,3名男性,年龄21-35岁,平均年龄/标准差=27.4/3.9岁)。结果表明,对于总乙酰天门冬氨酸(tNAA)、总胆碱(tCho)和肌醇(Ins)的定量,两种方法表现出高至良好的一致性,极限差异相对半区间分别为3.04%、9.3%和18.5%,皮尔逊相关系数分别为0.775、0.927和0.469。此外,QNet的定量结果更接近既往报道的平均值。结论:QNet与LCModel在tNAA、tCho和Ins定量上具有一致性,且QNet通常具有更高的合理性。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Objctives: This work aimed to statistically compare the metabolite quantification of human brain magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) between the deep learning method QNet and the classical method LCModel through an easy-to-use intelligent cloud computing platform CloudBrain-MRS. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, two 3 T MRI scanners Philips Ingenia and Achieva collected 61 and 46 in vivo 1H magnetic resonance (MR) spectra of healthy participants, respectively, from the brain region of pregenual anterior cingulate cortex from September to October 2021. The analyses of Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and reasonability were performed to assess the degree of agreement, linear correlation and reasonability between the two quantification methods. Results: Fifteen healthy volunteers (12 females and 3 males, age range: 21-35 years, mean age/standard deviation = 27.4/3.9 years) were recruited. The analyses of Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and reasonability showed high to good consistency and very strong to moderate correlation between the two methods for quantification of total N-acetylaspartate (tNAA), total choline (tCho), and inositol (Ins) (relative half interval of limits of agreement = 3.04%, 9.3%, and 18.5%, respectively; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.775, 0.927, and 0.469, respectively). In addition, quantification results of QNet are more likely to be closer to the previous reported average values than those of LCModel. Conclusion: There were high or good degrees of consistency between the quantification results of QNet and LCModel for tNAA, tCho, and Ins, and QNet generally has more reasonable quantification than LCModel.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。