Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 16, 2026

Author Spotlight: Noninvasive Cerebral Blood Flow Determination in Human Functional Brain Region for Diagnosis of Neurological Disorders
Published on: May 31, 2024
Artificial Intelligence-Based Arterial Input Function for the Quantitative Assessment of Myocardial Blood Flow and
Lara R van der Meulen1,2, Maud van Dinther2,3, Amedeo Chiribiri4
1Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract:
Background/Objectives: To validate an artificial intelligence-based arterial input function (AI-AIF) deep learning model for myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification during stress perfusion and assess its extension to rest perfusion, enabling myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) calculation. Methods: Sixty patients with or at risk for vascular cognitive impairment, prospectively enrolled in the CRUCIAL consortium, underwent quantitative stress and rest myocardial perfusion imaging using a 3 T MRI system. Perfusion imaging was performed using a dual-sequence (DS) protocol after intravenous administration of 0.05 mmol/kg gadobutrol. Retrospectively, the AI-AIF was estimated from standard perfusion images using a 1-D U-Net model trained to predict an unsaturated AIF from a saturated input. MBF was quantified using Fermi function-constrained deconvolution with motion compensation. MPR was calculated as the stress-to-rest MBF ratio. MBF and MPR estimates from both AIF methods were compared using Bland-Altman analyses. Results: Complete stress and rest perfusion datasets were available for 31 patients. A bias of -0.07 mL/g/min was observed between AI-AIF and DS-AIF for stress MBF (median 2.19 vs. 2.30 mL/g/min), with concordant coronary artery disease classification based on the optimal MBF threshold in over 92% of myocardial segments and coronary arteries. Larger biases of 0.12 mL/g/min and -0.30 were observed for rest MBF (1.12 vs. 1.02 mL/g/min) and MPR (2.31 vs. 1.84), respectively, with lower concordance using the optimal MPR threshold (85% of segments, 72% of arteries). Conclusions: The AI-AIF model showed comparable performance to DS-AIF for stress MBF quantification but requires further training for accurate rest MBF and MPR assessment.
More Related Videos
12:29Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quantification of Pulmonary Perfusion using Calibrated Arterial Spin Labeling
Published on: May 30, 2011
11:13Quantification of Mouse Heart Left Ventricular Function, Myocardial Strain, and Hemodynamic Forces by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published on: May 24, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System IV: CMRI