首页> 外文期刊>IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging >A Comparison of Finite Element-Based Inversion Algorithms, Local Frequency Estimation, and Direct Inversion Approach Used in MRE
【24h】

A Comparison of Finite Element-Based Inversion Algorithms, Local Frequency Estimation, and Direct Inversion Approach Used in MRE

机译:MRE中基于有限元的反演算法,局部频率估计和直接反演方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In quantitative elastography, maps of the mechanical properties of soft tissue, or elastograms, are calculated from the measured displacement data by solving an inverse problem. The model assumptions have a significant effect on elastograms. Motivated by the high sensitivity of imaging results to the model assumptions for in vivo magnetic resonance elastography of the prostate, we compared elastograms obtained with four different methods. Two finite-element method (FEM)-based methods developed by our group were compared with two other commonly used methods, local frequency estimator (LFE) and curl-based direct inversion (c-DI). All the methods assume a linear isotropic elastic model, but the methods vary in their assumptions, such as local homogeneity or incompressibility, and in the specific approach used. We report results using simulations, phantom, and ex vivo and in vivo data. The simulation and phantom studies show, for regions with an inclusion, that the contrast to noise ratio (CNR) for the FEM methods is about three to five times higher than the CNR for the LFE and c-DI and the rms error is about half. The LFE method produces very smooth results (i.e., low CNR) and is fast. c-DI is faster than the FEM methods but it is only accurate in areas where elasticity variations are small. The artifacts resulting from the homogeneity assumption in c-DI is detrimental in regions with large variations. The ex vivo and in vivo results also show similar trends as the simulation and phantom studies. The c-FEM method is more sensitive to noise compared with the mixed-FEM due to higher orders derivatives. This is especially evident at lower frequencies, where the wave curvature is smaller and it is more prone to such error, causing a discrepancy in the absolute values between the mixed-FEM and c-FEM in our in vivo results. In general, the proposed FEMs use fewer simplifying assumptions and outperform the other methods but they are computationally more expensive.
机译:在定量弹性成像中,通过解决反问题,从测得的位移数据中计算出软组织的机械特性图或弹性图。模型假设对弹性图有重大影响。由于成像结果对前列腺的体内磁共振弹性成像的模型假设具有很高的敏感性,因此我们比较了用四种不同方法获得的弹性成像。将我们小组开发的两种基于有限元方法(FEM)的方法与其他两种常用方法进行了比较,它们是局部频率估计器(LFE)和基于卷曲的直接反演(c-DI)。所有方法都假设线性各向同性弹性模型,但是这些方法在其假设(例如局部均一性或不可压缩性)以及所使用的特定方法方面有所不同。我们使用模拟,体模以及离体和体内数据报告结果。仿真和幻像研究表明,对于包含夹杂物的区域,FEM方法的对比度与噪声比(CNR)约比LFE和c-DI的CNR高三到五倍,且均方根误差约为一半。 LFE方法产生非常平滑的结果(即低CNR),并且速度很快。 c-DI比FEM方法更快,但仅在弹性变化较小的区域才是准确的。由c-DI中的同质性假设得出的伪影在变化较大的区域中是有害的。离体和体内结果也显示出与模拟和体模研究相似的趋势。 c-FEM方法由于具有较高阶导数,因此与混合FEM相比对噪声更敏感。这在较低频率下尤其明显,在较低频率下,波曲率较小,并且更容易出现此类误差,从而在我们的体内结果中导致混合FEM和c-FEM的绝对值出现差异。通常,建议的FEM使用较少的简化假设并胜过其他方法,但计算量较大。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号