Automatic detection of simulated artifacts on T1w magnetic resonance images: comparing performance of different QC strategies
Hendriks, J.; Jansen, M.; Joules, R.; Pena-Nogales, O.; Rodrigues, P. R.; Barkhof, F.; Schrantee, A.; Mutsaerts, H. J. M. M.; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative,
Show abstract
The reliability of MRI-derived measures critically depends on image quality. Poor-quality scans can obscure anatomical detail and compromise the accuracy of automated image analysis, underscoring the need for robust quality control (QC) procedures. Automated QC offers scalability for large neuroimaging datasets, yet the comparative performance of different approaches for detecting specific artifact types remains poorly understood. We systematically compared rule-based (RB), classical machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) QC algorithms using 1,000 high-quality T1w scans. Four artifact types, blurring, ghosting, motion, and noise were synthetically introduced across ten severity levels using TorchIO, yielding 40,000 degraded images. Visual QC of a subset confirmed strong inter-rater reliability (Krippendorffs =0.82, mean Spearmans {rho}=0.87). RB and ML models used 62 image quality metrics (IQMs) from MRIQC, whereas DL models were trained directly on minimally preprocessed images. Models were trained with participant-level five-fold cross-validation and tested on an independent dataset. DL models achieved the highest overall performance across artifact types (Youdens Index=0.83-0.97). RB and ML performed comparably at high artifact severities (YI[≥]0.75) but showed limited sensitivity to subtle ghosting and noise (YI[≤]0.15). Feature analysis indicated that RB relied primarily on normative metrics, whereas ML flexibly adapted feature use by artifact type and severity. These findings highlight DLs superior generalizability for detecting subtle artifacts and provide practical guidance for selecting QC strategies in large-scale neuroimaging pipelines, where reliable QC is essential for maintaining statistical power and reproducibility.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Multi-parametric quantitative spinal cord MRI with unified signal readout and image denoising 96%
- Error quantification in multi-parameter mapping facilitates robust estimation and enhanced group level sensitivity 96%
- Quality control strategies for brain MRI segmentation and parcellation: practical approaches and recommendations - insights from The Maastricht Study 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- BrainQCNet: a Deep Learning attention-based model for the automated detection of artifacts in brain structural MRI scans. 96%
- Automated quality control of T1-weighted brain MRI scans for clinical research: methods comparison and design of a quality prediction classifier 96%
- Denoising Diffusion MRI: Considerations and implications for analysis 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diffusion MRI Head Motion Correction Methods are Highly Accurate but Impacted by Denoising and Sampling Scheme 96%
- Deep Bayesian networks for uncertainty estimation and adversarial resistance of white matter hyperintensity segmentation 96%
- Cross-modality image translation of 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging to 7 Tesla using Generative Adversarial Networks 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving spatial normalization of brain diffusion MRI to measure longitudinal changes of tissue microstructure in the cortex and white matter. 95%
- 'Pscore' - A Novel Percentile-Based Metric to Accurately Assess Individual Deviations in Non-Gaussian Distributions of Quantitative MRI Metrics 94%
- Test-retest reproducibility of in vivo magnetization transfer ratio and saturation index in mice at 9.4 Tesla 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.