Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 11, 2025

Application of Deep Learning-Based Medical Image Segmentation via Orbital Computed Tomography
Published on: November 30, 2022
Analysis and Evaluation of a Deep Learning Reconstruction Approach with Denoising for Orthopedic MRI
Kevin M Koch1, Mohammad Sherafati1, V Emre Arpinar1
1Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd, Milwaukee, WI 53226 (K.M.K., M.S., V.E.A., S.B., R.A., A.S.N., M.R.S., S.F., R.M.); Department of MR Applications and Workflow, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wis (R.M.L., G.M., S.S.K.); and Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Milwaukee, Wis (D.V.).
Purpose:
To evaluate two settings (noise reduction of 50% or 75%) of a deep learning (DL) reconstruction model relative to each other and to conventional MR image reconstructions on clinical orthopedic MRI datasets.
Materials And Methods:
This retrospective study included 54 patients who underwent two-dimensional fast spin-echo MRI for hip (n = 22; mean age, 44 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; nine men) or shoulder (n = 32; mean age, 56 years ± 17; 17 men) conditions between March 2019 and June 2020. MR images were reconstructed with conventional methods and the vendor-provided and commercially available DL model applied with 50% and 75% noise reduction settings (DL 50 and DL 75, respectively). Quantitative analytics, including relative anatomic edge sharpness, relative signal-to-noise ratio (rSNR), and relative contrast-to-noise ratio (rCNR) were computed for each dataset. In addition, the image sets were randomized, blinded, and presented to three board-certified musculoskeletal radiologists for ranking based on overall image quality and diagnostic confidence. Statistical analysis was performed with a nonparametric hypothesis comparing derived quantitative metrics from each reconstruction approach. In addition, inter- and intrarater agreement analysis was performed on the radiologists' rankings.
Results:
Both denoising settings of the DL reconstruction showed improved edge sharpness, rSNR, and rCNR relative to the conventional reconstructions. The reader rankings demonstrated strong agreement, with both DL reconstructions outperforming the conventional approach (Gwet agreement coefficient = 0.98). However, there was lower agreement between the readers on which DL reconstruction denoising setting produced higher-quality images (Gwet agreement coefficient = 0.31 for DL 50 and 0.35 for DL 75).
Conclusion:
The vendor-provided DL MRI reconstruction showed higher edge sharpness, rSNR, and rCNR in comparison with conventional methods; however, optimal levels of denoising may need to be further assessed.Keywords: MRI Reconstruction Method, Deep Learning, Image Analysis, Signal-to-Noise Ratio, MR-Imaging, Neural Networks, Hip, Shoulder, Physics, Observer Performance, Technology Assessment Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021.
More Related Videos
11:29Real-time Video Projection in an MRI for Characterization of Neural Correlates Associated with Mirror Therapy for Phantom Limb Pain
Published on: April 20, 2019
12:50Lesion Explorer: A Video-guided, Standardized Protocol for Accurate and Reliable MRI-derived Volumetrics in Alzheimer's Disease and Normal Elderly
Published on: April 14, 2014