An efficient magnetic resonance image data quality screening dashboard. Issue 4 (11th February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gates, Evan D. H.; Celaya, Adrian; Suki, Dima; Schellingerhout, Dawid; Fuentes, David
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 23:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-02-11
• Subjects: dashboard -- data curation -- imaging informatics -- MRI; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13557
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Complex data processing and curation for artificial intelligence applications rely on high‐quality data sets for training and analysis. Manually reviewing images and their associated annotations is a very laborious task and existing quality control tools for data review are generally limited to raw images only. The purpose of this work was to develop an imaging informatics dashboard for the easy and fast review of processed magnetic resonance (MR) imaging data sets; we demonstrated its ability in a large‐scale data review. Methods: We developed a custom R Shiny dashboard that displays key static snapshots of each imaging study and its annotations. A graphical interface allows the structured entry of review data and download of tabulated review results. We evaluated the dashboard using two large data sets: 1380 processed MR imaging studies from our institution and 285 studies from the 2018 MICCAI Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge (BraTS). Results: Studies were reviewed at an average rate of 100/h using the dashboard, 10 times faster than using existing data viewers. For data from our institution, 1181 of the 1380 (86%) studies were of acceptable quality. The most commonly identified failure modes were tumor segmentation (9.6% of cases) and image registration (4.6% of cases). Tumor segmentation without visible errors on the dashboard had much better agreement with reference tumor volume measurements (root‐mean‐square error 12.2 cm 3 ) than did segmentations with minor errors (20.5 cm 3 ) or failed segmentations (27.4 cm 3 ). In the BraTS data, 242 of 285 (85%) studies were acceptable quality after processing. Among the 43 cases that failed review, 14 had unacceptable raw image quality. Conclusion: Our dashboard provides a fast, effective tool for reviewing complex processed MR imaging data sets. It is freely available for download at https://github.com/EGates1/MRDQED .