PCMC-T1: Free-breathing myocardial T1 mapping with Physically-Constrained Motion Correction

T1 mapping is a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) technique that has emerged as a valuable tool in the diagnosis of diffuse myocardial diseases. However, prevailing approaches have relied heavily on breath-hold sequences to eliminate respiratory motion artifacts. This limitation hinders...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inarXiv.org
Main Authors Hanania, Eyal, Volovik, Ilya, Barkat, Lilach, Cohen, Israel, Freiman, Moti
Format Paper
LanguageEnglish
Published Ithaca Cornell University Library, arXiv.org 22.08.2023
Subjects
Breathing
Computer architecture
Deep learning
Image registration
Magnetic resonance imaging
Mapping
Medical imaging
Registration
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:T1 mapping is a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) technique that has emerged as a valuable tool in the diagnosis of diffuse myocardial diseases. However, prevailing approaches have relied heavily on breath-hold sequences to eliminate respiratory motion artifacts. This limitation hinders accessibility and effectiveness for patients who cannot tolerate breath-holding. Image registration can be used to enable free-breathing T1 mapping. Yet, inherent intensity differences between the different time points make the registration task challenging. We introduce PCMC-T1, a physically-constrained deep-learning model for motion correction in free-breathing T1 mapping. We incorporate the signal decay model into the network architecture to encourage physically-plausible deformations along the longitudinal relaxation axis. We compared PCMC-T1 to baseline deep-learning-based image registration approaches using a 5-fold experimental setup on a publicly available dataset of 210 patients. PCMC-T1 demonstrated superior model fitting quality (R2: 0.955) and achieved the highest clinical impact (clinical score: 3.93) compared to baseline methods (0.941, 0.946 and 3.34, 3.62 respectively). Anatomical alignment results were comparable (Dice score: 0.9835 vs. 0.984, 0.988). Our code and trained models are available at https://github.com/eyalhana/PCMC-T1.
ISSN:2331-8422