Automated Quality Evaluation Index for Arterial Spin Labeling Derived Cerebral Blood Flow Maps.

Background: Arterial spin labeling (ASL) derived cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps are prone to artifacts and noise that can degrade image quality. Purpose: To develop an automated and objective quality evaluation index (QEI) for ASL CBF maps. Study Type: Retrospective. Population: Data from N = 221 adults, including patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease, and traumatic brain injury. Field Strength/Sequence: Pulsed or pseudocontinuous ASL acquired at 3 T using non-background suppressed 2D gradient-echo echoplanar imaging or background suppressed 3D spiral spin-echo readouts. Assessment: The QEI was developed using N = 101 2D CBF maps rated as unacceptable, poor, average, or excellent by two neuroradiologists and validated by 1) leave-one-out cross validation, 2) assessing if CBF reproducibility in N = 53 cognitively normal adults correlates inversely with QEI, 3) if iterative discarding of low QEI data improves the Cohen's d effect size for CBF differences between preclinical AD (N = 27) and controls (N = 53), 4) comparing the QEI with manual ratings for N = 50 3D CBF maps, and 5) comparing the QEI with another automated quality metric. Statistical Tests: Inter-rater reliability and manual vs. automated QEI were quantified using Pearson's correlation. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The correlation between QEI and manual ratings (R = 0.83, CI: 0.76-0.88) was similar (P = 0.56) to inter-rater correlation (R = 0.81, CI: 0.73-0.87) for the 2D data. CBF reproducibility correlated negatively (R = -0.74, CI: -0.84 to -0.59) with QEI. The effect size comparing patients and controls improved (R = 0.72, CI: 0.59-0.82) as low QEI data was discarded iteratively. The correlation between QEI and manual ratings (R = 0.86, CI: 0.77-0.92) of 3D ASL was similar (P = 0.09) to inter-rater correlation (R = 0.78, CI: 0.64-0.87). The QEI correlated (R = 0.87, CI: 0.77-0.92) significantly better with manual ratings than did an existing approach (R = 0.54, CI: 0.30-0.72). Data Conclusion: Automated QEI performed similarly to manual ratings and can provide scalable ASL quality control.