Clinical Evaluation of 3D Motion-Correction Via Scout Accelerated Motion Estimation and Reduction Framework Versus Conventional T1-Weighted MRI at 1.5 T in Brain Imaging

Laura S Leukert; Katya Hoffmannbeck Heitkötter; Andrea Kronfeld; Roman H Paul; Daniel Polak; Daniel Nicolas Splitthoff; Marc A Brockmann; Sebastian Altmann; Ahmed E Othman

doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000001156

Clinical Evaluation of 3D Motion-Correction Via Scout Accelerated Motion Estimation and Reduction Framework Versus Conventional T1-Weighted MRI at 1.5 T in Brain Imaging

Invest Radiol. 2025 Jan 22. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000001156. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Laura S Leukert¹, Katya Hoffmannbeck Heitkötter, Andrea Kronfeld, Roman H Paul, Daniel Polak, Daniel Nicolas Splitthoff, Marc A Brockmann, Sebastian Altmann, Ahmed E Othman

Affiliation

¹ From the Department of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (L.S.L., K.H.H., A.K., M.A.B., S.A., A.E.O.); Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (R.H.P.); and Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany (D.P., D.N.S.).

PMID: 39841594
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000001156

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of motion artifacts and image quality of brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T1-weighted imaging applying 3D motion correction via the Scout Accelerated Motion Estimation and Reduction (SAMER) framework compared with conventional T1-weighted imaging at 1.5 T.

Materials and methods: A preliminary study involving 14 healthy volunteers assessed the impact of the SAMER framework on induced motion during 3 T MRI scans. Participants performed 3 different motion patterns: (1) step up, (2) controlled breathing, and (3) free motion. The patient study included 82 patients who required clinically indicated MRI scans. 3D T1-weighted images (MPRAGE) were acquired at 1.5 T. The MRI data were reconstructed using either regular product reconstruction (non-Moco) or the 3D motion correction SAMER framework (SAMER Moco), resulting in 145 image sequences. For the preliminary and the patient study, 3 experienced radiologists evaluated the image data using a 5-point Likert scale, focusing on overall image quality, artifact presence, diagnostic confidence, delineation of pathology, and image sharpness. Interrater agreement was assessed using Gwet's AC2, and an exploratory analysis (non-Moco vs SAMER Moco) was performed.

Results: Compared with non-Moco, the preliminary study demonstrated significant improvements across all imaging parameters and motion patterns with SAMER Moco (P < 0.001). Odds ratios favoring SAMER Moco were >999.999 for freedom of artifact and overall image quality (P < 0.0001). Excellent or good ratings for freedom of artifact were 52.4% with SAMER Moco, compared with 21.4% for non-Moco. Similarly, 66.7% of SAMER Moco images were rated excellent or good for overall image quality versus 21.4% for non-Moco. Multireader interrater agreement was excellent across all parameters.The patient study confirmed that SAMER Moco provided significantly superior image quality across all evaluated imaging parameters, particularly in the presence of motion (P < 0.001). Diagnostic confidence was rated as excellent or good in 95.1% of SAMER Moco cases, compared with 78.1% for non-Moco cases. Similarly, overall image quality was rated as excellent or good in 89.8% of SAMER Moco cases versus 65.9% for non-Moco cases. The odds ratios for diagnostic confidence and for overall image quality were 6.698 and 6.030, respectively, both favoring SAMER Moco (P < 0.0001). Multireader interrater agreement was excellent across all parameters.

Conclusions: The application of SAMER in T1-weighted imaging datasets is feasible in clinical routine and significantly increases image quality and diagnostic confidence in 1.5 T brain MRI by effectively reducing motion artifacts.