Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Digital Imaging logoLink to Journal of Digital Imaging
. 2000 Nov;13(4):178–190. doi: 10.1007/BF03168393

Wavelet compression on detection of brain lesions with magnetic resonance imaging

Satoshi Terae 1,✉, Kazuo Miyasaka 1, Kohsuke Kudoh 1, Toshikazu Nambu 1, Tadashi Shimizu 1, Kenshi Kaneko 1, Hiroyuki Yoshikawa 1, Riwa Kishimoto 1, Tokuhiko Omatsu 1, Nobuyuki Fujita 1
PMCID: PMC3453072  PMID: 11110257

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to assess clinically acceptable compression ratios on the detection of brain lesions at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Four consecutive T2-weighted and the corresponding T1-weighted images obtained in 20 patients were studied for 109 anatomic sites including 50 with lesions and 59 without lesions. The images were obtained on a 1.5-T MR unit with a pixel size of 0.9 to 1.2×0.47 mm and a section thickness of 5 mm. The image data were compressed by wavelet-based algorithm at ratios of 20∶1, 40∶1, and 60∶1. Three radiologists reviewed these images on an interactive workstation and rated the presence or absence of a lesion with a 50 point scale for each anatomic site. The authors also evaluated the influence of pixel size on the quality of image compression. At receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, no statistically significant difference was detected at a compression ratio of 20∶1. A significant difference was observed with 40∶1 compressed images for one reader (P=.023), and with 60∶1 for all readers (P=.001 to .012). A root mean squared error (RMSE) was higher in 0.94-×0.94-mm pixel size images than in 0.94-×0.47-mm pixel size images at any compression ratio, indicating compression tolerance is lower for the larger pixel size images. The RMSE, subjective image quality, and error images of 10∶1 compressed 0.94-×0.94-mm pixel size images were comparable with those of 20∶1 compressed 0.94-×0.47-mm pixel size images. Wavelet compression can be acceptable clinically at ratios as high as 20∶1 for brain MR images when a pixel size at image acquisition is around 1.0×0.5 mm, and as high as 10∶1 for those with a pixel size around 1.0×1.0 mm.

Key Words: wavelet, image compression, magnetic resonance imaging, brain, receiver operating characteristic analysis, picture archiving and communication system (PACS)

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (5.0 MB).

References

  • 1.Wong S, Zaremba L, Gooden D, et al. Radiologic image compression: A review. Proc IEEE. 1995;83:194–218. doi: 10.1109/5.364466. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gillespy T, Rowberg AH. Displaying radiologic images on personal computers: Image storage and compression: Part 1. J Digit Imaging. 1993;6:197–204. doi: 10.1007/BF03168527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wallace GK. The JPEG still picture compression standard. Commun Assoc Comput Machinery. 1991;34:31–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Erickson BJ, Manduca A, Palisson P, et al. Wavelet compression of medical images. Radiology. 1998;206:599–607. doi: 10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Manduca A. Interactive wavelet-based 2-D and 3-D image compression. Proc SPIE. 1993;1897:307–318. doi: 10.1117/12.146980. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ricke J, Maass P, Lopez Hanninen E, et al. Wavelet versus JPEG (Joint Photographic Expert Group) and fractal compression: Impact on the detection of low-contrast details in computed radiographs. Invest Radiol. 1998;33:456–463. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199808000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Iyriboz TA, Zukoski MJ, Hopper KD, et al. A comparison of wavelet and Joint Photographic Experts Group lossy compression methods applied to medical images. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12(Suppl 1):14–17. doi: 10.1007/BF03168745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Thompson SK, Hazle JD, Schomer DF, et al. Performance analysis of a new semiorthogonal spline wavelet compression algorithm for tonal medical images. Med Phys. 2000;27:276–288. doi: 10.1118/1.598830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Goldberg MA, Pivovarov M, Mayo-Smith WW, et al. Application of wavelet compression to digitized radiographs. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;163:463–468. doi: 10.2214/ajr.163.2.8037051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Erickson BJ, Manduca A, Persons KR, et al. Evaluation of irreversible compression of digitized posterior-anterior chest radiographs. J Digit Imaging. 1997;10:97–102. doi: 10.1007/BF03168595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Savcenko V, Erickson BJ, Palisson PM, et al. Detection of subtle abnormalities on chest radiographs after irreversible compression. Radiology. 1998;206:609–616. doi: 10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Goldberg MA, Gazelle GS, Boland GW, et al. Focal hepatic lesions: Effect of three-dimensional wavelet compression on detection at CT. Radiology. 1997;202:159–165. doi: 10.1148/radiology.202.1.8988206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zheng LM, Sone S, Itani Y, et al. Effect of CT digital image compression on detection of coronary artery calcification. Acta Radiol. 2000;41:116–121. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0455.2000.041002116.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Abu-Rezq AN, Tolba AS, Khuwaja GA, et al. Best parameters selection for wavelet packet-based compression of magnetic resonance images. Comput Biomed Res. 1999;32:449–469. doi: 10.1006/cbmr.1999.1523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Antonini M, Barlaud M, Mathieu P, et al. Image coding using wavelet transform. IEEE Trans Image Proc. 1992;1:205–220. doi: 10.1109/83.136597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Metz CE, Herman BA, Roe CA. Statistical comparison of two ROC curve estimates obtained from partially-paired datasets. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:110–121. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9801800118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Karson TH, Chandra S, Morehead AJ, et al. JPEG compression of digital echocardiographic images: Impact on image quality. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1995;8:306–318. doi: 10.1016/S0894-7317(05)80041-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Uchida K, Watanabe H, Aoki T, et al. Clinical evaluation of irreversible data compression for computed radiography of the hand. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11:121–125. doi: 10.1007/BF03168735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wenzel A, Gottredsen E, Borg E, et al. Impact of lossy image compression on accuracy of caries detection in digital images taken with a storage phosphor system. Oral Surg Med Pathol Radiol Endodont. 1996;81:351–355. doi: 10.1016/S1079-2104(96)80336-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Persons K, Palisson P, Manduca A, et al. An analytical look at the effects of compression on medical images. J Digit Imaging. 1997;10(Suppl 1):60–66. doi: 10.1007/BF03168659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chan KK, Lou SL, Huang HK. Full-frame transform compression of CT and MR images. Radiology. 1989;171:847–851. doi: 10.1148/radiology.171.3.2717763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wehrli FW, McGowan JC. The basis of MR contrast. In: Atlas SW, editor. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. pp. 29–48. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Digital Imaging are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES