Pith. sign in

REVIEW

IR2QSM: Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping via Deep Neural Networks with Iterative Reverse Concatenations and Recurrent Modules

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.12300 v1 pith:QNRGXYEF submitted 2024-06-18 eess.IV cs.CVq-bio.NC

IR2QSM: Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping via Deep Neural Networks with Iterative Reverse Concatenations and Recurrent Modules

classification eess.IV cs.CVq-bio.NC
keywords ir2qsmartifactsdeepu-netconcatenationsexperimentsilsqrlpcnn
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) is an MRI phase-based post-processing technique to extract the distribution of tissue susceptibilities, demonstrating significant potential in studying neurological diseases. However, the ill-conditioned nature of dipole inversion makes QSM reconstruction from the tissue field prone to noise and artifacts. In this work, we propose a novel deep learning-based IR2QSM method for QSM reconstruction. It is designed by iterating four times of a reverse concatenations and middle recurrent modules enhanced U-net, which could dramatically improve the efficiency of latent feature utilization. Simulated and in vivo experiments were conducted to compare IR2QSM with several traditional algorithms (MEDI and iLSQR) and state-of-the-art deep learning methods (U-net, xQSM, and LPCNN). The results indicated that IR2QSM was able to obtain QSM images with significantly increased accuracy and mitigated artifacts over other methods. Particularly, IR2QSM demonstrated on average the best NRMSE (27.59%) in simulated experiments, which is 15.48%, 7.86%, 17.24%, 9.26%, and 29.13% lower than iLSQR, MEDI, U-net, xQSM, LPCNN, respectively, and led to improved QSM results with fewer artifacts for the in vivo data.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.