Cited by 185Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsImage and Signal Denoising Methods

Quantitative susceptibility mapping using deep neural network: QSMnet

Open access
Yoon, Jaeyeon, Gong, Enhao, Chatnuntawech, Itthi, Bilgic, Berkin, Lee, Jingu, Jung, Woojin, Ko, Jingyu, Jung, Hosan +5 more·2018·NeuroImage

Abstract

Deep neural networks have demonstrated promising potential for the field of medical image reconstruction, successfully generating high quality images for CT, PET and MRI. In this work, an MRI reconstruction algorithm, which is referred to as quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM), has been developed using a deep neural network in order to perform dipole deconvolution, which restores magnetic susceptibility source from an MRI field map. Previous approaches of QSM require multiple orientation data (e.g. Calculation of Susceptibility through Multiple Orientation Sampling or COSMOS) or regularization terms (e.g. Truncated K-space Division or TKD; Morphology Enabled Dipole Inversion or MEDI) to solve an ill-conditioned dipole deconvolution problem. Unfortunately, they either entail challenges in data acquisition (i.e. long scan time and multiple head orientations) or suffer from image artifacts. To overcome these shortcomings, a deep neural network, which is referred to as QSMnet, is constructed to generate a high quality susceptibility source map from single orientation data. The network has a modified U-net structure and is trained using COSMOS QSM maps, which are considered as gold standard. Five head orientation datasets from five subjects were employed for patch-wise network training after doubling the training data using a model-based data augmentation. Seven additional datasets of five head orientation images (i.e. total 35 images) were used for validation (one dataset) and test (six datasets). The QSMnet maps of the test dataset were compared with the maps from TKD and MEDI for their image quality and consistency with respect to multiple head orientations. Quantitative and qualitative image quality comparisons demonstrate that the QSMnet results have superior image quality to those of TKD or MEDI results and have comparable image quality to those of COSMOS. Additionally, QSMnet maps reveal substantially better consistency across the multiple head orientation data than those from TKD or MEDI. As a preliminary application, the network was further tested for three patients, one with microbleed, another with multiple sclerosis lesions, and the third with hemorrhage. The QSMnet maps showed similar lesion contrasts with those from MEDI, demonstrating potential for future applications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.030

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • QSMnet, a three-dimensional CNN based on the U-Net architecture, can generate high quality susceptibility source maps from single orientation data.

    “Recently Yoon et al. [147] constructed a three-dimensional CNN, named QSMnet and based on the U-Net architecture, able to generate high quality susceptibility source maps from single orientation data.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yoon, J., Gong, E., Chatnuntawech, I., Bilgic, B., Lee, J., Jung, W., Ko, J., Jung, H., Setsompop, K., Zaharchuk, G., Kim, E. Y., Pauly, J., & Lee, J.
Affiliations
  • Seoul National University (KR)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • National Nanotechnology Center (TH)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Gachon University (KR)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Jongho
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
179
Pages
199-206
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2791695392
Cited by
185
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
12.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Seoul National University
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017M3C7A1047864)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Signal Denoising Methods
Keywords
quantitative susceptibility mapping, modified U-Net, cosmos, microbleeds, multiple sclerosis lesions, hemorrhage
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Neural Networks, Computer

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