Highly Accelerated T 1ρ Imaging in 3 min: Comparison Between Compressed Sensing and Deep Learning Reconstruction

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to compare between compressed sensing (CS) and deep learning (DL) accelerated T 1ρ mapping in knee cartilage, a quantitative imaging technique that provides valuable information for disease diagnosis but requires long scan time. Both retrospectively and prospectively undersampled reconstruction were evaluated in nine volunteers including three with diagnosed pathology. For data collection, DESS images were collected for segmentation of six cartilage compartments. T 1ρ ‐weighted 3D MAPSS sequence was used to create T 1ρ maps. A 3T MRI scanner was used and GRAPPA 2 accelerated data were collected to provide 8‐echo reference T 1ρ maps and was retrospectively undersampled for reconstruction with two sampling schemes: 4 TSLs with each echo image undersampled by 4 (UF4_4echo), and 8 TSLs with each echo image undersampled by 8 (UF8_8echo). Separate prospectively undersampled datasets were also collected for reconstruction. Volunteers were scanned and rescanned with repositioning for repeatability comparison. Reference, retrospectively undersampled reconstruction, and prospectively undersampled reconstruction were compared by voxel‐wise median normalized absolute differences (MNADs), concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and coefficient of variation (CV) using cartilage compartment‐wise mean value. As a result, for retrospective undersampling, CS showed CCC 0.992, MNAD 10.0%, and CV 1.3% for UF4_4echo, and CCC 0.988, MNAD 9.9%, and CV 1.4% for UF8_8echo. DL showed CCC 0.971, MNAD 9.8%, and CV 1.7% for UF4_4echo, and CCC 0.968, MNAD 10.6%, and CV 1.7% for UF8_8echo. For prospective undersampling, CS showed CCC 0.853 and CV 3.3% for UF4_4echo, and CCC 0.754 and CV 3.9% for UF8_8echo. DL showed CCC 0.939 and CV 2.4% for UF4_4echo and CCC 0.845 and CV 2.8% for UF8_8echo. The maps had 2.57%, 3.80%, 2.79%, 2.29%, and 2.85% scan–rescan CV, respectively, for reference, CS UF4_4echo, CS UF8_8echo, DL UF4_4echo, and DL UF8_8echo reconstructions. As a conclusion, DL provided better results compared to CS in prospectively undersampled reconstruction.