论文标题
重新审视CG-Sense:第一个ISMRM可重复性挑战的结果
CG-SENSE revisited: Results from the first ISMRM reproducibility challenge
论文作者
论文摘要
目的:这项工作的目的是阐明在挑战的背景下,MR图像重建中可重复性的问题。参与者必须重现Pruessmann等人的“使用任意K-Space轨迹编码灵敏度的进步”的结果。 方法:挑战的任务是按照原始论文中的方法重建径向获得的多圈K空间数据(大脑/心脏),从而再现其关键数字。将结果与挑战后创建的合并参考实现进行了比较,该结果考虑了提交中使用的两种最常见的编程语言(MATLAB/PYTHON)。 结果:在视觉上,提交之间的差异很小。像素方面的差异源自图像方向,假定的视野或分辨率。参考实现在视觉和图像相似性指标方面都达到了良好的一致性。 讨论和结论:虽然已发表算法的描述级别使参与者一般可以重现CG-Sense,但实施的详细信息各不相同,例如密度补偿或Tikhonov正则化。关于数据的隐式假设导致进一步的差异,强调了伴随开放数据集足够的元数据的重要性。在没有地面真相结果的情况下,定义可重复性对于此图像重建挑战而言是不平凡的。 SSIM NMSE等典型的相似性度量被图像强度缩放和离群像素误导。因此,为了促进可重复性,鼓励研究人员与原始论文一起发布代码和数据。关于MR图像重建的未来方法论论文可能会受益于此处介绍的CG-Sense的合并参考实现,作为方法比较的基准。
Purpose: The aim of this work is to shed light on the issue of reproducibility in MR image reconstruction in the context of a challenge. Participants had to recreate the results of "Advances in sensitivity encoding with arbitrary k-space trajectories" by Pruessmann et al. Methods: The task of the challenge was to reconstruct radially acquired multi-coil k-space data (brain/heart) following the method in the original paper, reproducing its key figures. Results were compared to consolidated reference implementations created after the challenge, accounting for the two most common programming languages used in the submissions (Matlab/Python). Results: Visually, differences between submissions were small. Pixel-wise differences originated from image orientation, assumed field-of-view or resolution. The reference implementations were in good agreement, both visually and in terms of image similarity metrics. Discussion and Conclusion: While the description level of the published algorithm enabled participants to reproduce CG-SENSE in general, details of the implementation varied, e.g., density compensation or Tikhonov regularization. Implicit assumptions about the data lead to further differences, emphasizing the importance of sufficient meta-data accompanying open data sets. Defining reproducibility quantitatively turned out to be non-trivial for this image reconstruction challenge, in the absence of ground-truth results. Typical similarity measures like NMSE of SSIM were misled by image intensity scaling and outlier pixels. Thus, to facilitate reproducibility, researchers are encouraged to publish code and data alongside the original paper. Future methodological papers on MR image reconstruction might benefit from the consolidated reference implementations of CG-SENSE presented here, as a benchmark for methods comparison.