Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32379942›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2020

Estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters from DCE-MRI by extracting long and short time-dependent features using an LSTM network.

Jiaren Zou, James M Balter, Yue Cao

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 3D FRONSAC with PSF reconstruction.Journal of magnetic resonance (San Diego, Calif. : 1997) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jiaren ZouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
James M BalterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Yue CaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Optimizing MRI for Radiation Therapy Treatment PlanningR01EB016079 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BALTER, JAMES M, CAO, YUE · 2013 to 2022
$3.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB016079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeT

methodsA Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network, widely used for processing sequence data, was employed to map DCE-MRI time-series accompanied with an arterial input function to parameters of the extended Tofts model. Head and neck DCE-MRI from 103 patients were used for training and testing the LSTM model. Arterial input functions (AIFs) from 78 patients were used to generate synthetic DCE-MRI time-series for training, during which data augmentation was used to overcome the limited size of in vivo data. The model was tested on independent synthesized DCE data using AIFs from 25 patients. The LSTM performance was optimized for the numbers of layers and hidden state features. The performance of the LSTM was tested for different temporal resolution, total acquisition time, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and compared to the conventional LS fitting and a CNN-based method.

resultsCompared to LS fitting, the LSTM model had comparable accuracy in PK parameter estimations from fully temporal-sampled DCE-MRI data (~3 s per frame), but much better accuracy for the data with temporally subsampling (4s or greater per frame), total acquisition time truncation by 48%-16%, or low CNR (5 and 10). The LSTM reduced normalized root mean squared error by 40.4%, 46.9%, and 53.0% for sampling intervals of 4s, 5s, and 6s, respectively, compared to LS fitting. Compared to the CNN model, the LSTM model reduced the error in the parameter estimates up to 55.2%. Also, the LSTM improved the inference time by ~ 14 times on CPU compared to LS fitting.

conclusionOur study suggests that the LSTM model could achieve improved robustness and computation speed for PK parameter estimation compared to LS fitting and the CNN based network, particularly for suboptimal data.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaMagnetic Resonance ImagingAlgorithmsHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisNeural Networks, ComputerContrast Mediacontrast agentDCE-MRIlong-short-term memorymachine learningpharmacokinetic modeltemporal correlation

Identifiers

PMID32379942
PMCPMC7429301
OpenAlexW3022360252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.