Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30197842›Full record

ArticleIEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine2018

Image Quality Evaluation in Clinical Research: A Case Study on Brain and Cardiac MRI Images in Multi-Center Clinical Trials.

Michael Osadebey, Marius Pedersen, Douglas Arnold, Katrina Wendel-Mitoraj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Comprehensive evaluation method of real-time non-reference ultrasound image involving soft tissue deformation].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. A customized acutance metric for quality control applications in MRI.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael OsadebeyNeuroRx Research IncMontrealQCH2X 3P9Canada.
Marius PedersenDepartment of Computer ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyN-2815GjovikNorway.
Douglas ArnoldMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill UniversityMontrealQCH3A 2BCanada.
Katrina Wendel-MitorajBrainCare Oy33520TampereFinland.

Funding

Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative - SupplementU01AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE RES &EDUC · PI WEINER, MICHAEL W · 2004 to 2015
$121.0M
NIA NIH HHS U01 AG024904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system images are important components in the development of drugs because it can reveal the underlying pathology in diseases. Unfortunately, the processes of image acquisition, storage, transmission, processing, and analysis can influence image quality with the risk of compromising the reliability of MRI-based data. Therefore, it is necessary to monitor image quality throughout the different stages of the imaging workflow. This report describes a new approach to evaluate the quality of an MRI slice in multi-center clinical trials. The design philosophy assumes that an MRI slice, such as all natural images, possess statistical properties that can describe different levels of contrast degradation. A unique set of pixel configuration is assigned to each possible level of contrast-distorted MRI slice. Invocation of the central limit theorem results in two separate Gaussian distributions. The central limit theorem says that the mean and standard deviation of pixel configuration assigned to each possible level of contrast degradation will follow a normal distribution. The mean of each normal distribution corresponds to the mean and standard deviation of the underlying ideal image. Quality prediction processes for a test image can be summarized into four steps. The first step extracts local contrast feature image from the test image. The second step computes the mean and standard deviation of the feature image. The third step separately standardizes each normal distribution using the mean and standard deviation computed from the feature image. This gives two separate z-scores. The fourth step predicts the lightness contrast quality score and the texture contrast quality score from cumulative distribution function of the appropriate normal distribution. The proposed method was evaluated objectively on brain and cardiac MRI volume data using four different types and levels of degradation. The four types of degradation are Rician noise, circular blur, motion blur, and intensity nonuniformity also known as bias fields. Objective evaluation was validated using a proposed variation of difference of mean opinion scores. Results from performance evaluation show that the proposed method will be suitable to monitor and standardize image quality throughout the different stages of imaging workflow in large clinical trials. MATLAB implementation of the proposed objective quality evaluation method can be downloaded from (https://github.com/ezimic/Image-Quality-Evaluation).

Indexed as

brain MRIcardiac MRIcentral limit theoremimage qualitylabeling problemlightness contrast and texture contrastMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)normal distribution

Identifiers

PMID30197842
PMCPMC6126794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.