LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

An efficient magnetic resonance image data quality screening dashboard.

Photo by campaign_creators from unsplash

PURPOSE Complex data processing and curation for artificial intelligence applications rely on high-quality data sets for training and analysis. Manually reviewing images and their associated annotations is a very laborious… Click to show full abstract

PURPOSE Complex data processing and curation for artificial intelligence applications rely on high-quality data sets for training and analysis. Manually reviewing images and their associated annotations is a very laborious task and existing quality control tools for data review are generally limited to raw images only. The purpose of this work was to develop an imaging informatics dashboard for the easy and fast review of processed magnetic resonance (MR) imaging data sets; we demonstrated its ability in a large-scale data review. METHODS We developed a custom R Shiny dashboard that displays key static snapshots of each imaging study and its annotations. A graphical interface allows the structured entry of review data and download of tabulated review results. We evaluated the dashboard using two large data sets: 1380 processed MR imaging studies from our institution and 285 studies from the 2018 MICCAI Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge (BraTS). RESULTS Studies were reviewed at an average rate of 100/h using the dashboard, 10 times faster than using existing data viewers. For data from our institution, 1181 of the 1380 (86%) studies were of acceptable quality. The most commonly identified failure modes were tumor segmentation (9.6% of cases) and image registration (4.6% of cases). Tumor segmentation without visible errors on the dashboard had much better agreement with reference tumor volume measurements (root-mean-square error 12.2 cm3 ) than did segmentations with minor errors (20.5 cm3 ) or failed segmentations (27.4 cm3 ). In the BraTS data, 242 of 285 (85%) studies were acceptable quality after processing. Among the 43 cases that failed review, 14 had unacceptable raw image quality. CONCLUSION Our dashboard provides a fast, effective tool for reviewing complex processed MR imaging data sets. It is freely available for download at https://github.com/EGates1/MRDQED.

Keywords: review; image; data sets; magnetic resonance; quality

Journal Title: Journal of applied clinical medical physics
Year Published: 2022

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.