Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling

Thomas L. Chenevert, Dariya I. Malyarenko, David Newitt, Xin Li, Mohan Jayatilake, Alina Tudorica, Andriy Fedorov, Ron Kikinis, Tiffany Ting Liu, Mark Muzi, Matthew J. Oborski, Charles M. Laymon, Xia Li, Yankeelov Thomas, Kalpathy Cramer Jayashree, James M. Mountz, Paul E. Kinahan, Daniel L. Rubin, Fiona Fennessy, Wei Huang & 2 others Nola Hylton, Brian D. Ross

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

  • 7 Citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of various software (SW) tools used for quantitative image analysis to properly account for source-specific image scaling employed by magnetic resonance imaging manufacturers. METHODS: A series of gadoteridol-doped distilled water solutions (0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% volume concentrations) was prepared for manual substitution into one (of three) phantom compartments to create "variable signal", whereas the other two compartments (containing mineral oil and 0.25% gadoteriol) were held unchanged. Pseudodynamic images were acquired over multiple series using four scanners such that the histogram of pixel intensities varied enough to provoke variable image scaling from series to series. Additional diffusion-weighted images were acquired of an ice-water phantom to generate scanner-specific apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. The resulting pseudodynamic images and ADC maps were analyzed by eight centers of the Quantitative Imaging Network using 16 different SW tools to measure compartment-specific region-of-interest intensity. RESULTS: Images generated by one of the scanners appeared to have additional intensity scaling that was not accounted for by the majority of tested quantitative image analysis SW tools. Incorrect image scaling leads to intensity measurement bias near 100%, compared to nonscaled images. CONCLUSION: Corrective actions for image scaling are suggested for manufacturers and quantitative imaging community.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages65-71
Number of pages7
JournalTranslational Oncology
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Software
Water
Mineral Oil
Ice
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
gadoteridol

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Chenevert, T. L., Malyarenko, D. I., Newitt, D., Li, X., Jayatilake, M., Tudorica, A., ... Ross, B. D. (2014). Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling. Translational Oncology, 7(1), 65-71. DOI: 10.1593/tlo.13811

Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling. / Chenevert, Thomas L.; Malyarenko, Dariya I.; Newitt, David; Li, Xin; Jayatilake, Mohan; Tudorica, Alina; Fedorov, Andriy; Kikinis, Ron; Liu, Tiffany Ting; Muzi, Mark; Oborski, Matthew J.; Laymon, Charles M.; Li, Xia; Thomas, Yankeelov; Jayashree, Kalpathy Cramer; Mountz, James M.; Kinahan, Paul E.; Rubin, Daniel L.; Fennessy, Fiona; Huang, Wei; Hylton, Nola; Ross, Brian D.

In: Translational Oncology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2014, p. 65-71.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Chenevert, TL, Malyarenko, DI, Newitt, D, Li, X, Jayatilake, M, Tudorica, A, Fedorov, A, Kikinis, R, Liu, TT, Muzi, M, Oborski, MJ, Laymon, CM, Li, X, Thomas, Y, Jayashree, KC, Mountz, JM, Kinahan, PE, Rubin, DL, Fennessy, F, Huang, W, Hylton, N & Ross, BD 2014, 'Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling' Translational Oncology, vol 7, no. 1, pp. 65-71. DOI: 10.1593/tlo.13811
Chenevert TL, Malyarenko DI, Newitt D, Li X, Jayatilake M, Tudorica A et al. Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling. Translational Oncology. 2014;7(1):65-71. Available from, DOI: 10.1593/tlo.13811
Chenevert, Thomas L. ; Malyarenko, Dariya I. ; Newitt, David ; Li, Xin ; Jayatilake, Mohan ; Tudorica, Alina ; Fedorov, Andriy ; Kikinis, Ron ; Liu, Tiffany Ting ; Muzi, Mark ; Oborski, Matthew J. ; Laymon, Charles M. ; Li, Xia ; Thomas, Yankeelov ; Jayashree, Kalpathy Cramer ; Mountz, James M. ; Kinahan, Paul E. ; Rubin, Daniel L. ; Fennessy, Fiona ; Huang, Wei ; Hylton, Nola ; Ross, Brian D./ Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling. In: Translational Oncology. 2014 ; Vol. 7, No. 1. pp. 65-71
@article{3e2fa8516f584f33866c78b2e76e5d3b,
title = "Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of various software (SW) tools used for quantitative image analysis to properly account for source-specific image scaling employed by magnetic resonance imaging manufacturers. METHODS: A series of gadoteridol-doped distilled water solutions (0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% volume concentrations) was prepared for manual substitution into one (of three) phantom compartments to create {"}variable signal{"}, whereas the other two compartments (containing mineral oil and 0.25% gadoteriol) were held unchanged. Pseudodynamic images were acquired over multiple series using four scanners such that the histogram of pixel intensities varied enough to provoke variable image scaling from series to series. Additional diffusion-weighted images were acquired of an ice-water phantom to generate scanner-specific apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. The resulting pseudodynamic images and ADC maps were analyzed by eight centers of the Quantitative Imaging Network using 16 different SW tools to measure compartment-specific region-of-interest intensity. RESULTS: Images generated by one of the scanners appeared to have additional intensity scaling that was not accounted for by the majority of tested quantitative image analysis SW tools. Incorrect image scaling leads to intensity measurement bias near 100%, compared to nonscaled images. CONCLUSION: Corrective actions for image scaling are suggested for manufacturers and quantitative imaging community.",
author = "Chenevert, {Thomas L.} and Malyarenko, {Dariya I.} and David Newitt and Xin Li and Mohan Jayatilake and Alina Tudorica and Andriy Fedorov and Ron Kikinis and Liu, {Tiffany Ting} and Mark Muzi and Oborski, {Matthew J.} and Laymon, {Charles M.} and Xia Li and Yankeelov Thomas and Jayashree, {Kalpathy Cramer} and Mountz, {James M.} and Kinahan, {Paul E.} and Rubin, {Daniel L.} and Fiona Fennessy and Wei Huang and Nola Hylton and Ross, {Brian D.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1593/tlo.13811",
volume = "7",
pages = "65--71",
journal = "Translational Oncology",
issn = "1936-5233",
publisher = "Neoplasia Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling

AU - Chenevert,Thomas L.

AU - Malyarenko,Dariya I.

AU - Newitt,David

AU - Li,Xin

AU - Jayatilake,Mohan

AU - Tudorica,Alina

AU - Fedorov,Andriy

AU - Kikinis,Ron

AU - Liu,Tiffany Ting

AU - Muzi,Mark

AU - Oborski,Matthew J.

AU - Laymon,Charles M.

AU - Li,Xia

AU - Thomas,Yankeelov

AU - Jayashree,Kalpathy Cramer

AU - Mountz,James M.

AU - Kinahan,Paul E.

AU - Rubin,Daniel L.

AU - Fennessy,Fiona

AU - Huang,Wei

AU - Hylton,Nola

AU - Ross,Brian D.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of various software (SW) tools used for quantitative image analysis to properly account for source-specific image scaling employed by magnetic resonance imaging manufacturers. METHODS: A series of gadoteridol-doped distilled water solutions (0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% volume concentrations) was prepared for manual substitution into one (of three) phantom compartments to create "variable signal", whereas the other two compartments (containing mineral oil and 0.25% gadoteriol) were held unchanged. Pseudodynamic images were acquired over multiple series using four scanners such that the histogram of pixel intensities varied enough to provoke variable image scaling from series to series. Additional diffusion-weighted images were acquired of an ice-water phantom to generate scanner-specific apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. The resulting pseudodynamic images and ADC maps were analyzed by eight centers of the Quantitative Imaging Network using 16 different SW tools to measure compartment-specific region-of-interest intensity. RESULTS: Images generated by one of the scanners appeared to have additional intensity scaling that was not accounted for by the majority of tested quantitative image analysis SW tools. Incorrect image scaling leads to intensity measurement bias near 100%, compared to nonscaled images. CONCLUSION: Corrective actions for image scaling are suggested for manufacturers and quantitative imaging community.

AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of various software (SW) tools used for quantitative image analysis to properly account for source-specific image scaling employed by magnetic resonance imaging manufacturers. METHODS: A series of gadoteridol-doped distilled water solutions (0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% volume concentrations) was prepared for manual substitution into one (of three) phantom compartments to create "variable signal", whereas the other two compartments (containing mineral oil and 0.25% gadoteriol) were held unchanged. Pseudodynamic images were acquired over multiple series using four scanners such that the histogram of pixel intensities varied enough to provoke variable image scaling from series to series. Additional diffusion-weighted images were acquired of an ice-water phantom to generate scanner-specific apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. The resulting pseudodynamic images and ADC maps were analyzed by eight centers of the Quantitative Imaging Network using 16 different SW tools to measure compartment-specific region-of-interest intensity. RESULTS: Images generated by one of the scanners appeared to have additional intensity scaling that was not accounted for by the majority of tested quantitative image analysis SW tools. Incorrect image scaling leads to intensity measurement bias near 100%, compared to nonscaled images. CONCLUSION: Corrective actions for image scaling are suggested for manufacturers and quantitative imaging community.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902517646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902517646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1593/tlo.13811

DO - 10.1593/tlo.13811

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 65

EP - 71

JO - Translational Oncology

T2 - Translational Oncology

JF - Translational Oncology

SN - 1936-5233

IS - 1

ER -