An artificially intelligent magnetic resonance spectroscopy quantification method: Comparison between QNet and LCModel on the cloud computing platform CloudBrain-MRS
This work addresses the need for reliable AI-based quantification methods in medical imaging for clinicians and researchers, but it is incremental as it compares an existing deep learning method to a classical one without introducing new techniques.
This study compared the metabolite quantification of human brain magnetic resonance spectroscopy between the deep learning method QNet and the classical method LCModel using the CloudBrain-MRS platform, finding high to good consistency and strong to moderate correlations (e.g., Pearson r = 0.775 to 0.927) for key metabolites, with QNet results generally more reasonable.
Objctives: This work aimed to statistically compare the metabolite quantification of human brain magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) between the deep learning method QNet and the classical method LCModel through an easy-to-use intelligent cloud computing platform CloudBrain-MRS. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, two 3 T MRI scanners Philips Ingenia and Achieva collected 61 and 46 in vivo 1H magnetic resonance (MR) spectra of healthy participants, respectively, from the brain region of pregenual anterior cingulate cortex from September to October 2021. The analyses of Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and reasonability were performed to assess the degree of agreement, linear correlation and reasonability between the two quantification methods. Results: Fifteen healthy volunteers (12 females and 3 males, age range: 21-35 years, mean age/standard deviation = 27.4/3.9 years) were recruited. The analyses of Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and reasonability showed high to good consistency and very strong to moderate correlation between the two methods for quantification of total N-acetylaspartate (tNAA), total choline (tCho), and inositol (Ins) (relative half interval of limits of agreement = 3.04%, 9.3%, and 18.5%, respectively; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.775, 0.927, and 0.469, respectively). In addition, quantification results of QNet are more likely to be closer to the previous reported average values than those of LCModel. Conclusion: There were high or good degrees of consistency between the quantification results of QNet and LCModel for tNAA, tCho, and Ins, and QNet generally has more reasonable quantification than LCModel.