Paper detail

An analysis of reconstruction noise from undersampled 4D flow MRI

Novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging modalities can quantify hemodynamics but require long acquisition times, precluding its widespread use for early diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. To reduce the acquisition times, reconstruction methods from undersampled measurements are routinely used, that leverage representations designed to increase image compressibility. Reconstructed anatomical and hemodynamic images may present visual artifacts. Although some of these artifact are essentially reconstruction errors, and thus a consequence of undersampling, others may be due to measurement noise or the random choice of the sampled frequencies. Said otherwise, a reconstructed image becomes a random variable, and both its bias and its covariance can lead to visual artifacts; the latter leads to spatial correlations that may be misconstrued for visual information. Although the nature of the former has been studied in the literature, the latter has not received as much attention. In this study, we investigate the theoretical properties of the random perturbations arising from the reconstruction process, and perform a number of numerical experiments on simulated and MR aortic flow. Our results show that the correlation length remains limited to two to three pixels when a Gaussian undersampling pattern is combined with recovery algorithms based on $\ell_1$-norm minimization. However, the correlation length may increase significantly for other undersampling patterns, higher undersampling factors (i.e., 8x or 16x compression), and different reconstruction methods.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.