2181
The sensitivity of classical and deep image similarity metrics to MR acquisition parameters
Veronica Ravano1,2,3, Gian Franco Piredda1,2,3, Tom Hilbert1,2,3, Bénédicte Maréchal1,2,3, Reto Meuli2, Jean-Philippe Thiran2,3, Tobias Kober1,2,3, and Jonas Richiardi2
1Advanced Clinical Imaging Technology, Siemens Healthineers, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 3LTS5, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Perceptual loss is correlated with L1 distance and outperforms other metrics in detecting changes in acquisition parameters. Segmentation loss is poorly correlated with other metrics, suggesting that maximizing these similarity metrics is not sufficient to harmonize data.
Figure 1. Contrasts obtained from fourteen different MPRAGE protocols in one example subject. Five equally spaced flip angles were investigated (between 5° and 13°) for two different combinations of repetition and inversion times (TR/TI = 2300/900 ms and 1930/972 ms). Five equally spaced read-out bandwidths were also investigated (between 160 and 320 Hz/Px) for TR/TI=2300/900 ms.
Figure 2. Variation of similarity losses in four experimental scenarios shown in Table 2. SSIM loss is defined as the inverse of SSIM. Segmentation loss is defined as the relative absolute error in the thalamus volume estimation. LPIPS(VGG16) represents a learned similarity metric based on a perceptual loss. Highlighted x-axis ticks indicate the corresponding reference image. *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001