PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Saunders, Sara L.
AU  - Clark, Justin M.
AU  - Rudser, Kyle
AU  - Chauhan, Anil
AU  - Ryder, Justin R.
AU  - Bolan, Patrick J.
TI  - Liver Volumetry from Magnetic Resonance Images with Convolutional Neural Networks
AID  - 10.1101/2021.12.01.21267152
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.12.01.21267152
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/09/2021.12.01.21267152.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/09/2021.12.01.21267152.full
AB  - Measurements of liver volume from MR images can be valuable for both clinical and research applications. Automated methods using convolutional neural networks have been used successfully for this using a variety of different MR image types as input. In this work, we sought to determine which types of magnetic resonance images give the best performance when used to train convolutional neural networks for liver segmentation and volumetry.Abdominal MRI scans were performed at 3 Tesla on 42 adolescents with obesity. Scans included Dixon imaging (giving water, fat, and T2* images) and low-resolution T2-weighted anatomical scans. Multiple convolutional neural network models using a 3D U-Net architecture were trained with different input images. Whole-liver manual segmentations were used for reference. Segmentation performance was measured using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff distance. Liver volume accuracy was evaluated using bias, precision, and normalized root mean square error (NRMSE).The models trained using both water and fat images performed best, giving DSC = 0.94 and NRMSE = 4.2%. Models trained without the water image as input all performed worse, including in participants with elevated liver fat. Models using the T2-weighted anatomical images underperformed the Dixon-based models, but provided acceptable performance (DSC ≥ 0.92, NMRSE ≤ 6.6%) for use in longitudinal pediatric obesity interventions. The model using Dixon water and fat images as input gave the best performance, with results comparable to inter-reader variability and state-of-the-art methods.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT02496611Funding StatementThis work was supported in part by NIH NIDDK R01DK105953, NIH NIBIB P41EB027061, and NIH NCATS UL1TR002494.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:IRB of the University of Minnesota gave ethical approval for this workI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authorsBMIbody mass indexCAIPIRINHAControlled Aliasing in Parallel Imaging Results in Higher AccelerationCNNConvolutional neural networkCTcomputed tomographyDSCDice similarity coefficientFOVField of viewGRAPPAGeneRalized Autocalibrating Partial Parallel AcquisitionHASTEhalf-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echoHD9595th percentile Hausdorff distanceMRImagnetic resonance imagingNAFLDnon alcoholic fatty liver diseaseNRMSEnormalized root mean square errorPDFFproton density fat fraction