Dynamic digital phantom to systematic evaluate the characterization of vascular morphological and hemodynamic features using quantitative MRI

Investigators
Thomas E. Yankeelov
Contact info (email)
thomas.yankeelov@utexas.edu
1. Define context(s)
reveal new biological insights
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
adequate
Primary goal of the model/tool/database

We have previously developed a novel image processing and computational modeling methods to characterize tumor-associated vessels to assist in the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. In this contribution, we provide a novel framework based on a dynamic digital phantom and virtual MRI simulation to systematically evaluate these image processing methods, and furthermore, rigorously determine an optimal acquisition-reconstruction protocol that balances acquisition demands with clinical reality.

Biological domain of the model
Kidney
Structure(s) of interest in the model
vasculature
Spatial scales included in the model
millimeter
Time scales included in the model
second
2. Data for building and validating the model
Data for building the model Published? Private? How is credibility checked? Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
in vitro (primary cells cell, lines, etc.)
ex vivo (excised tissues) Yes Extensive
in vivo pre-clinical (lower-level organism or small animal)
in vivo pre-clinical (large animal)
Human subjects/clinical
Other: ________________________
Data for validating the model Published? Private? How is credibility checked? Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
in vitro (primary cells cell, lines, etc.)
ex vivo (excised tissues)
in vivo pre-clinical (lower-level organism or small animal)
in vivo pre-clinical (large animal)
Human subjects/clinical
Other: ________________________ No User-specific simulation adequate
3. Validate within context(s)
Who does it? When does it happen? How is it done? Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
Verification
Validation
Uncertainty quantification End user After simulation Monte-Carlo adequate
Sensitivity analysis
Other:__________
Additional Comments
4. Limitations
Disclaimer statement (explain key limitations) Who needs to know about this disclaimer? How is this disclaimer shared with that audience? Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
User must be well-skilled in MRI acquisition. User In Methods sections of publications adequate
5. Version control
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
insufficient (project still in progress)
Naming Conventions? Repository? Code Review?
individual modeler
within the lab
collaborators
6. Documentation
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
Code commented? Partial (project still in progress)
Scope and intended use described? Partial (project still in progress)
User’s guide? Insufficient (project still in progress)
Developer’s guide? Insufficient (project still in progress)
7. Dissemination
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
Adequate
Target Audience(s): “Inner circle” Scientific community Public
Simulations Publications N/A
Models Publications N/A
Software N/A N/A
Results Publications N/A
Implications of results Publications N/A
8. Independent reviews
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
Insufficient; project still in progress and has not been submitted for peer review yet
Reviewer(s) name & affiliation:
When was review performed?
How was review performed and outcomes of the review?
9. Test competing implementations
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
Insufficient; it is not clear that there are competing implementations
Yes or No (briefly summarize)
Were competing implementations tested?
Did this lead to model refinement or improvement?
10. Conform to standards
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level
adequate
Yes or No (briefly summarize)
Are there operating procedures, guidelines, or standards for this type of multiscale modeling? no
How do your modeling efforts conform? N/A