Cited by 455Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsImage and Signal Denoising MethodsAdvanced Image Processing Techniques

KIKI‐net: cross‐domain convolutional neural networks for reconstructing undersampled magnetic resonance images

Open access
Eo, Taejoon, Jun, Yohan, Kim, Taeseong, Jang, Jinseong, Lee, Ho‐Joon, Hwang, Dosik·2018·Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Abstract

Purpose To demonstrate accurate MR image reconstruction from undersampled k‐space data using cross‐domain convolutional neural networks (CNNs) Methods Cross‐domain CNNs consist of 3 components: (1) a deep CNN operating on the k‐space (KCNN), (2) a deep CNN operating on an image domain (ICNN), and (3) an interleaved data consistency operations. These components are alternately applied, and each CNN is trained to minimize the loss between the reconstructed and corresponding fully sampled k‐spaces. The final reconstructed image is obtained by forward‐propagating the undersampled k‐space data through the entire network. Results Performances of K‐net (KCNN with inverse Fourier transform), I‐net (ICNN with interleaved data consistency), and various combinations of the 2 different networks were tested. The test results indicated that K‐net and I‐net have different advantages/disadvantages in terms of tissue‐structure restoration. Consequently, the combination of K‐net and I‐net is superior to single‐domain CNNs. Three MR data sets, the T2 fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery (T2 FLAIR) set from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and 2 data sets acquired at our local institute (T2 FLAIR and T1 weighted), were used to evaluate the performance of 7 conventional reconstruction algorithms and the proposed cross‐domain CNNs, which hereafter is referred to as KIKI‐net. KIKI‐net outperforms conventional algorithms with mean improvements of 2.29 dB in peak SNR and 0.031 in structure similarity. Conclusion KIKI‐net exhibits superior performance over state‐of‐the‐art conventional algorithms in terms of restoring tissue structures and removing aliasing artifacts. The results demonstrate that KIKI‐net is applicable up to a reduction factor of 3 to 4 based on variable‐density Cartesian undersampling.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mrm.27201

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eo, T., Jun, Y., Kim, T., Jang, J., Lee, H., & Hwang, D.
Affiliations
Yonsei University (KR)
Corresponding author
Hwang, Dosik
Venue
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-04-06
Volume
80
Issue
5
Pages
2188-2201
ISSN
  • 0740-3194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2594
OpenAlex
W2795380527
Cited by
455
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 5
FWCI
25.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation of Korea
  • MSIP (2016R1A2B4015016)
  • Yonsei University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Signal Denoising Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image Processing Techniques
Keywords
MRI reconstruction, k-space undersampling, T2-FLAIR, T1-weighted imaging
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Databases, Factual, Neural Networks, Computer, Signal-To-Noise Ratio

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review