Premium
MR fingerprinting Deep RecOnstruction NEtwork (DRONE)
Author(s) -
Cohen Ouri,
Zhu Bo,
Rosen Matthew S.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
magnetic resonance in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.696
H-Index - 225
eISSN - 1522-2594
pISSN - 0740-3194
DOI - 10.1002/mrm.27198
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , artificial intelligence , pattern recognition (psychology) , computer science , mean squared error , iterative reconstruction , artificial neural network , deep learning , computer vision , mathematics , nuclear medicine , statistics , medicine
Purpose Demonstrate a novel fast method for reconstruction of multi‐dimensional MR fingerprinting (MRF) data using deep learning methods. Methods A neural network (NN) is defined using the TensorFlow framework and trained on simulated MRF data computed with the extended phase graph formalism. The NN reconstruction accuracy for noiseless and noisy data is compared to conventional MRF template matching as a function of training data size and is quantified in simulated numerical brain phantom data and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology phantom data measured on 1.5T and 3T scanners with an optimized MRF EPI and MRF fast imaging with steady state precession (FISP) sequences with spiral readout. The utility of the method is demonstrated in a healthy subject in vivo at 1.5T. Results Network training required 10 to 74 minutes; once trained, data reconstruction required approximately 10 ms for the MRF EPI and 76 ms for the MRF FISP sequence. Reconstruction of simulated, noiseless brain data using the NN resulted in a RMS error (RMSE) of 2.6 ms for T 1 and 1.9 ms for T 2 . The reconstruction error in the presence of noise was less than 10% for both T 1 and T 2 for SNR greater than 25 dB. Phantom measurements yielded good agreement (R 2 = 0.99/0.99 for MRF EPI T 1 /T 2 and 0.94/0.98 for MRF FISP T 1 /T 2 ) between the T 1 and T 2 estimated by the NN and reference values from the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology phantom. Conclusion Reconstruction of MRF data with a NN is accurate, 300‐ to 5000‐fold faster, and more robust to noise and dictionary undersampling than conventional MRF dictionary‐matching.