Computer-implemented method for operating a magnetic resonance device, magnetic resonance device, computer program and electronically readable data carrier

Abstract

The invention relates to a computer-implemented method for operating a magnetic resonance imaging device (19), which comprises an operating device (22) that provides a user interface (1), in particular a graphical one, for setting a sequence of measurement protocols (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9) to be performed on an object of investigation in an examination procedure, wherein set measurement protocols (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) are checked in at least one verification process with regard to compliance with at least one safety requirement relating to the object of investigation and / or the magnetic resonance device (19) and are executed only if each of the at least one safety requirement is met, wherein upon receipt of a verification readiness signal, which describes a user input that has been made and that has been completed by a user setting a selected measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) for an examination procedure,The selected measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) is marked as ready for verification, so that at least one of the verification processes can already be carried out and / or is performed before the measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) is next in line for execution according to the sequence in the investigation process, in particular already during the user setting of at least one further measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

Description

[0001] The invention relates to a computer-implemented method for operating a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, which includes an operating device that provides a user interface, in particular a graphical one, for setting a sequence of measurement protocols to be performed on an object under investigation during an examination procedure. The set measurement protocols are checked in at least one verification process with regard to compliance with at least one safety requirement relating to the object under investigation and / or the MRI device, and are executed only if each of the at least one safety requirement is met. The invention also relates to a MRI device, a computer program, and an electronically readable data carrier.

[0002] Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now an established tool in medical diagnostics and procedure monitoring. Using different MRI sequences, implemented through various measurement protocols, different aspects within a subject, particularly a patient, can be examined. It is common practice to use multiple measurement protocols in a single examination; this means defining a sequence of measurement protocols, possibly with their parameters, before the examination begins.

[0003] Operating systems for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices typically provide a user interface for defining sequences of measurement protocols. For example, it is common practice to drag and drop various measurement protocols into a list, such as a queue, to compile the sequence during or even during the examination. If necessary, protocol parameters can be adjusted in a corresponding display to accommodate specific requirements of the subject, particularly the patient, or the examination itself. This can include adjustments to the sequence parameters, image resolution, and / or scan time. The measurement protocol, or its associated display, can then be closed, and the protocol remains in the queue until it is executed.

[0004] In magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems, specific safety requirements must be met with regard to the subject of the examination, particularly patients, and also the components of the MRI system itself. These requirements are addressed through measurement protocols and the overall procedure. Safety requirements can relate to both the safety of the subject of the examination (patient safety) and system safety. Patient safety considerations include, for example, SAR exposure, potential nerve stimulation, and the consideration of implants. System safety and image quality assurance requirements include adherence to technical specifications, such as gradient specifications, energy deposition in the magnet, the use of charge balance models to prevent overloading of radio frequency amplifiers (RFPA), and similar measures.

[0005] It is therefore known in the art to perform at least one verification procedure before executing the respective measurement protocols in order to check compliance with the safety requirements and to ensure that all protocol parameters and the resulting magnetic resonance pulses (gradient pulses and radio frequency pulses) are within the safe and permissible limits defined by the safety requirements. Typically, several verification procedures are used, for example, corresponding algorithms and / or verification processes, which can be assigned to different safety requirements. This ensures that the examination procedure can be carried out safely and effectively without endangering the patient's health or the condition of the magnetic resonance equipment.Due to increasing regulatory requirements and in order to use the hardware as optimally and gently as possible, the number of verification processes is currently increasing.

[0006] Specifically, at least some of the known verification processes can be divided into two different classes. On the one hand, a representative section of the respective measurement protocol can be simulated (the so-called ::check() method), and on the other hand, the entire measurement protocol can be simulated ("rolled out") (the so-called ::run() method). It is also known to perform calculations based on values ​​exported from the measurement protocol, particularly the magnetic resonance sequence.

[0007] If a check fails in at least one verification process, meaning at least one safety requirement is not met (for example, if a value being checked exceeds a predefined limit), at least one measure is initiated to resolve the problem or to allow the user to resolve it. For example, so-called solution processes are known as computational processes that, for instance using a solver, generate new suggestions for protocol parameters and / or measurement protocols that meet the safety requirements. These suggestions can then be presented to the user via the user interface. Depending on which check failed, a solution space is defined using at least one, and usually several, protocol parameters, and the adapted measurement protocol is simulated in several iterations to find combinations of protocol parameters that solve the problem.Each iteration requires a new simulation of the measurement protocol or calculation. It may be necessary to perform several solution processes sequentially, for example, if different checks have failed or different safety requirements have been violated.

[0008] The necessary sequence simulations and calculations are lengthy and require significant computing resources, as they must ensure that the new protocol parameters not only resolve the original problem but also do not introduce new ones. Therefore, resolving security breaches can be a lengthy process, impacting the overall investigation.

[0009] Part of the problem is that verification and, if necessary, troubleshooting can only take place once the final sequence of measurement protocols, including the magnetic resonance pulses, is known. Verification only begins immediately before the measurement, i.e., the examination procedure, starts, and this verification and, if necessary, troubleshooting can take 15 to 30 seconds, or in extreme cases, several minutes. In tightly scheduled examinations, this can lead to significant, unacceptable delays. This, in turn, can lead to the user abandoning certain features and / or protocol parameters that they know to be potentially problematic. For example, measurement protocols might be deliberately chosen and configured to be "less effective" from the outset to avoid delays caused by troubleshooting.

[0010] After the review and, if necessary, the problem resolution, the calculated solutions—that is, changes to measurement protocols and / or protocol parameters—are displayed to the user in the user interface, for example, via a corresponding window, particularly a pop-up. The user can review the suggested changes and decide whether to accept them. It may happen that the suggested solutions do not correspond to the user's intentions, requiring them to return to configuring the measurement protocol sequence, make their own changes that might resolve the problem, and then have the system reviewed again. This results in a significant loss of time.

[0011] To solve this problem, as already mentioned above, it was proposed to simulate only a representative portion of the respective measurement protocols, which can save time compared to simulating the entire protocol. However, this has the disadvantage that, with complex magnetic resonance sequence schemes and a large number of possible combinations of protocol parameters, not all extreme cases can be covered. If a critical point is not included in the representative portion but is executed during the test procedure, exceeding limit values ​​or generally violating safety requirements can cause the test procedure to be terminated during runtime, which is undesirable.This is particularly problematic when contrast agents are administered, as the measurement protocol and at least one magnetic resonance sequence must be performed at specific times after the contrast agent is administered in order to accurately visualize the contrast agent. In such a case, repeating the examination is not immediately possible, meaning the patient must be scheduled for a new appointment.

[0012] It has also been suggested that magnetic resonance sequences and measurement protocols be optimized to allow for faster testing and thus faster problem solving. This is extremely time-consuming for the developers of magnetic resonance sequences and often involves limitations for the user. For example, the parameter space of a measurement protocol can be restricted by increasing the step size of individual protocol parameters and / or narrowing the permissible limits. This accelerates the solution-finding process but severely limits the user's design options.

[0013] From EP 4 053 576 A1, a method for determining a simulation value describing a safety-relevant parameter for an MRI measurement is known. An MRI pulse sequence is provided, which is configured to perform an MRI measurement of a patient using an MRI scanner. The MRI pulse sequence comprises a temporal sequence of several RF pulses and several gradient pulses. In addition, at least one patient parameter is provided, which describes a patient characteristic. Based on the MRI pulse sequence and the at least one patient parameter, a processing unit determines at least one simulation value. This at least one simulation value describes a safety-relevant parameter when performing an MRI measurement using the MRI pulse sequence. Specific properties of the RF pulses and gradient pulses of the MRI pulse sequence, as well as their temporal sequence, are taken into account when determining the at least one simulation value.Furthermore, at least one simulation value is provided.

[0014] The invention is therefore based on the objective of reducing waiting times with regard to the verification of safety requirements and, if necessary, problem solving.

[0015] To solve this problem, the invention provides a computer-implemented method, a magnetic resonance device, a computer program, and an electronically readable data carrier according to the dependent claims. Advantageous embodiments are described in the sub-claims.

[0016] In a method of the type mentioned at the outset, it is provided according to the invention that upon receipt of a verification readiness signal, which indicates a user input that describes the completion of setting a selected measurement protocol for an investigation process by a user, the selected measurement protocol is marked as ready for verification, so that at least one of the at least one verification process can already be carried out and / or is carried out before the measurement protocol is next in line for execution according to the sequence in the investigation process, in particular already during the user setting at least one further measurement protocol.

[0017] It is therefore proposed to enable verification processes and, as will be discussed in more detail below, in particular troubleshooting processes for identifying changes to the measurement protocols that lead to compliance with safety requirements, even before the measurement protocol is processed in the investigation process. This is achieved by allowing user input that ultimately marks a submitted measurement protocol as "final" and can thus be used to indicate that it is "ready for verification." Specifically, verification and, if necessary, problem resolution can take place before the processing sequence is complete and, if necessary, while further measurement protocols are being submitted. In other words, verification and, if necessary, problem resolution can occur while the measurement protocol is still in the queue.By entering the information, the user ultimately indicates that they no longer intend to modify the corresponding measurement protocol. This allows the verification and, in particular, the troubleshooting to be calculated at this point, especially while the measurement protocol is in the queue. The verification and, if necessary, the troubleshooting therefore do not occur only when the sequence configuration is complete or when the measurement protocol is about to be executed, but rather at an earlier point in time, as soon as the operator has released it for verification.

[0018] This approach enables improved control and utilization of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system and its processing units, resulting in clear technical advantages. Firstly, more efficient use of computing resources is possible, and secondly, waiting times before and during the scan are reduced. Protocol review and, if necessary, the generation of solutions can be performed while the scan protocol is in the queue, and even while the sequence is still being configured. This results in significant time savings, as the scan protocols can be executed sequentially without delays caused by computationally intensive verification and problem-solving.

[0019] A verification process is understood as a computational process that, in particular, implements at least a part of an algorithm used to verify at least one safety requirement. The verification process uses input data, specifically protocol parameters of at least the respective measurement protocol, to determine output data relating to compliance with the safety requirement. This output data indicates compliance or non-compliance (failure of the verification) and / or can be used to determine compliance or non-compliance. A verification process need not necessarily encompass the entire verification; it may also include at least one verification process that relates to a subprocess of an overall process and can be executed independently of the rest of the overall process.For example, if the SAR is to be determined for comparison with limit values, it also depends on previous measurement protocols or, more generally, the history of the investigation process, which may not yet be available. This could be because the previous measurement protocols have not yet been fully configured and / or, if the system is to work with actual, measured values ​​(as in a monitor), the measurement protocol has not yet been executed. Therefore, a measurement protocol in the queue may not yet be fully checked. However, some preliminary calculations can still be performed so that, before the measurement protocol is executed, or when the historical data is available (e.g., after the previous measurement protocols have been checked), only the additional input information from the history needs to be added, which can significantly speed up the calculation.

[0020] Similarly, a solution process involves a computation process that, in particular, implements at least a part of an algorithm which, in the event of a violation of at least one safety requirement, determines proposed solutions for which this at least one safety requirement is not violated.

[0021] Both verification and problem-solving can utilize algorithms and / or programming tools known in the prior art. However, at least one verification process and / or at least one solution process must include the simulation of at least a portion of the measurement protocol to be verified and / or modified. As previously explained, simulations are particularly time-consuming, so performing them as early as possible leads to significant time savings and increased efficiency. This is especially true for iterative solution processes, particularly within the framework of an optimization procedure, where the simulation must be repeated for each test set of protocol parameters. Therefore, verification and solution processes that incorporate simulations offer particularly significant advantages.

[0022] Specifically, it may be provided, for example, that at least one of the at least one verification process concerns the SAR exposure of the object under investigation and / or the nerve stress of the object under investigation and / or the suitability of fields and field profiles for an implant of the object under investigation and / or the assurance of a desired image quality of the examination process and / or compliance with at least one technical specification of the magnetic resonance device, in particular with regard to a gradient coil arrangement and / or a high-frequency coil arrangement and / or an amplifier arrangement, and / or the thermal behavior of the magnetic resonance device. Corresponding verification processes (and also solution processes), i.e., computational processes, are already known in the prior art and can also be used within the scope of the present invention.

[0023] A convenient embodiment of the present invention provides that, to determine the feasibility of a given verification process, a feasibility condition is checked, which indicates at least the presence of all input data necessary for the verification process. In other words, not all verification processes are necessarily feasible simply because the user has indicated that a protocol has been set up as complete, since, for example, input data for a verification process that lies outside the measurement protocol may still be missing. Specifically, it can be provided that, for a selected measurement protocol that references at least one other measurement protocol in the sequence and / or input data from at least one preceding measurement protocol in the sequence, the feasibility condition is checked to see whether the other and / or the preceding measurement protocol itself is already marked as ready for verification.For example, protocol parameters can be linked to those of previous measurement protocols, meaning they correspond to or depend on them. In such a case, the verification process is only carried out when the protocol parameters required as input data for the reference, i.e., the other measurement protocol, are known; in other words, when the other measurement protocol is also marked as ready for verification. In another example, input data from at least one immediately preceding measurement protocol, and in particular all preceding measurement protocols, are required to calculate certain characteristic values, especially thermal characteristic values ​​(especially temperatures of components of the magnetic resonance device) and / or the SAR.The feasibility of the corresponding verification procedures is only determined once all the necessary preceding measurement protocols and their protocol parameters are available, i.e., marked as ready for verification. The feasibility condition can also verify the execution of at least one solution process associated with the corresponding verification procedure.

[0024] In a first, less preferred option, it could be stipulated that all feasible verification procedures are carried out as soon as the system is marked as ready for verification. This means that the verification process begins immediately, as far as possible. This achieves the greatest time savings; however, if the timing is unfavorable, it can lead to an extremely high load on the computational resources of the magnetic resonance instrument, which can also unintentionally affect other computational processes.

[0025] Therefore, a second, preferred embodiment of the present invention provides that, depending on utilization information describing the utilization of at least one computing unit of the magnetic resonance device, an availability condition, particularly specific to the respective feasible verification (or, if applicable, solution) process, is evaluated. This condition indicates the availability of sufficient free computing resources, and if this condition is met, the feasible verification (or solution) process is carried out. In other words, intelligent management of computing resources is possible. Specifically, calculations for verification processes (and analogously also solution processes) can therefore always be performed when computing resources, in particular computing time and computing capacity, are available on at least one suitable computing unit of the magnetic resonance device.This allows computing units to be used to a particular advantage even during periods when they are not fully utilized or not at all, resulting in highly efficient use of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system's computing resources and a significant reduction in waiting times during examinations. In particular, at least one computing unit can be a control unit of the MRI system, specifically a protocol computer. If this computing unit, especially the protocol computer, is also required for other preparatory processes or even for measurement protocols already used during the measurement, the phases in which computing resources are unused can be specifically identified and then used for the verification process (and, if necessary, the problem-solving process).

[0026] In order to minimize or ideally avoid influencing other calculations, particularly those relating to setting up configurations and / or executing measurement protocols, a further expedient embodiment of the present invention may provide that prioritization is used when allocating computational resources, whereby verification operations (and optionally solution operations) are assigned a lower priority than at least one user interface-related calculation operation, in particular than any other calculation operation serving the setting up and / or preparation of the investigation operation, and / or at least one calculation operation serving the execution of a measurement protocol, in particular any other calculation operation serving the execution of a measurement protocol.Therefore, computing resources are only made available for verification processes and, if necessary, resolution processes when they are not needed by more "urgent" processes.

[0027] One concrete alternative for implementing user input could involve generating the verification readiness signal when a setting completion control in the user interface is activated within the display for configuring the selected measurement protocol. In other words, this variant eliminates the need for an additional control in the user interface and assigns a "dual function" to a setting completion control. This control would not only terminate the configuration of a measurement protocol, particularly by closing the corresponding display (e.g., a window), but also mark the selected measurement protocol as ready for verification. Such a setting completion control could, for example, be an "OK" button or similar.

[0028] In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, the verification readiness signal is also generated when a locking control is activated, which prevents changes to the selected measurement protocol. A particularly advantageous feature is that the locking control can be displayed in a list-like representation of the measurement protocols in the sequence. A new control, the locking control, can thus be added to each measurement protocol in the sequence, which can be understood as a kind of "lock" or "block" button. By pressing this button, the user confirms that they no longer intend to modify the measurement protocol.

[0029] Preferably, the locked state, particularly in the list-like display, is indicated, especially by changing the locking control and / or by displaying a corresponding icon and / or removing an icon indicating the editing state, particularly a "Working Man" icon. For example, user interfaces are known in which measurement reports that are still being processed or can be edited are marked with a corresponding icon, such as the so-called "Working Man." Actuating the locking control can then cause this icon to disappear, clearly indicating that this measurement report is no longer intended for editing. For example, the icon indicating the editing state can be replaced by an icon indicating the locked state, or such an icon can be used if no editing state icon is present.It is also possible to modify the locking control element, for example by highlighting or adding a lock icon. Additionally or alternatively, it is conceivable to "gray out" the measurement log to indicate that it should no longer be edited. In a suitable design, it is still possible to view the measurement log, specifically its parameters, by selecting it, particularly in a "read-only" mode. In this sense, the locking control element thus provides increased security against accidental changes.

[0030] In a suitable further development, it is conceivable that the locking state and the readiness for verification are ended when the locking control is activated again. An unlocking control can also be provided for this purpose. This would allow changes to be made by the user again, whereby any previously calculated verification and / or solution processes, i.e., their results, may be discarded if the changes affect their input data. It is also possible to implement designs in which changes can still be made in the measurement protocol view, which is in the locked state, and these changes would then release the locked state (and the readiness for verification), although this is less preferred.

[0031] It should be noted that when using the settings completion control to mark the system as ready for verification, it is advisable to end the verification readiness by re-accessing the measurement protocol. After pressing the settings completion control again, the verification readiness can be restored, allowing, for example, the processing of verification operations and, if applicable, resolution operations to continue, at least if no relevant protocol parameters have been changed.

[0032] In general, it can therefore be said that if a protocol parameter used as input data in a previously executed verification process is changed, the previous results of the verification process should be discarded. In other words, whenever input data of a verification process changes, its results (and possibly those of a subsequent solution process) are discarded, and, at least once verification readiness is restored, the corresponding verification processes (and possibly solution processes) are then carried out again.

[0033] In a particularly preferred embodiment of the present invention, it is provided that, if the result of a previously performed verification process indicates the need to change an associated measurement protocol or the sequence of measurement protocols, at least one solution process is carried out to determine proposed solutions for the change, in particular while the user is setting at least one further measurement protocol, and / or a notification indicating this necessity is displayed to the user in the user interface. As already mentioned, solution processes can also be carried out, if necessary, well before the measurement protocol is called for execution, in particular while the measurement protocol is still in the queue, if a verification of a feasible verification process has failed.Therefore, the explanations regarding verification processes can be applied analogously to solution processes. In this context, it is advisable to also inform the user of the need for a change. Thus, the notification information can, for example, indicate that a problem and suggested solutions exist for a measurement protocol for which a verification has failed. If, less preferable, solution processes are not carried out or are not yet completed / not yet feasible, the notification information can also indicate the fundamental existence of a problem, i.e., a violation of a safety requirement.

[0034] The explanatory information can be conveniently displayed, at least partially, in the list-like view of the measurement logs, assigned to the respective measurement log, and especially adjacent to it. For example, it can be displayed at the position of a (then no longer present) Working Man icon or next to a locking control element. The list-like view of the measurement logs ultimately reflects the queue and is particularly suitable for highlighting measurement logs that require intervention.

[0035] By performing the verification (and, if necessary, resolution) processes early, the user is generally notified in advance via the notification information if there are proposed solutions or a need for changes. The user can then react at a time that seems appropriate, even if the measurement protocol is not yet scheduled for execution. They can review the proposed solutions and adopt at least one of them. Alternatively, the user can make manual adjustments and then release the measurement protocol for review again by entering the appropriate user input, in particular by activating the locking or setting completion control in the user interface.Then, by performing at least the feasible verification and, if necessary, solution procedures, the control unit of the magnetic resonance device can re-verify the user-adapted measurement protocol with regard to the safety requirements, and in particular again before the measurement protocol is called up for execution from the queue, i.e., while it is in the queue.

[0036] In addition to the method, the present invention also relates to a magnetic resonance device comprising an operating device that provides a user interface, in particular a graphical one, for setting a sequence of measurement protocols to be carried out on an object under investigation during an examination procedure, and a control device configured to carry out a method according to the invention. All aspects relating to the method according to the invention can be applied analogously to the magnetic resonance device according to the invention, with which the aforementioned advantages can therefore also be obtained.

[0037] The control unit can comprise at least one processor and at least one storage medium. Functional units can be formed by hardware and / or software to perform steps of the method according to the invention. For example, the control unit can include a verification unit for checking set measurement protocols in at least one verification process with regard to compliance with at least one safety requirement relating to the object under investigation and / or the magnetic resonance device, wherein the measurement protocols are executed only if each of the at least one safety requirement is met.Furthermore, the control unit can include a marking unit configured to mark the selected measurement protocol as ready for verification upon receiving a verification readiness signal indicating user input that describes the completion of setting a selected measurement protocol for an investigation process. Optionally, a feasibility unit can be provided to verify the feasibility conditions. A resource management unit is particularly advantageous, as it triggers the specific execution of verification and resolution processes depending on the fulfillment of the respective availability conditions, especially while the respective measurement protocol is in the queue, i.e., not yet called for execution. Naturally, any pending verification processes are carried out at the latest when the protocol is called.

[0038] The provision of the user interface can be controlled by a user interaction unit of the control device, which in corresponding embodiments can also provide setting completion controls or locking controls and / or output informational messages. Further functional units for implementing variations of the method according to the invention are also conceivable.

[0039] A computer program according to the invention can be directly loaded into a storage medium of a control unit of a magnetic resonance device and comprises program elements such that, when the computer program is executed on the control unit, the latter is caused to carry out the steps of a method according to the invention. The computer program can be stored on an electronically readable data carrier according to the present invention, which therefore comprises control information stored thereon, comprising at least one computer program according to the invention and designed such that, when the data carrier is used in a control unit of a magnetic resonance device, the latter is configured to carry out a method according to the invention. The data carrier can, in particular, be a non-transient data carrier, for example, a CD-ROM.

[0040] Further advantages and details of the present invention will become apparent from the specific embodiments described below and from the drawings. These show: Fig. 1 a flowchart of an embodiment of the method according to the invention, Fig. 2 schematically shows a possible design of a user interface, Fig. 3 a schematic diagram of a magnetic resonance device according to the invention, and Fig. 4 the functional structure of a control unit of the magnetic resonance device.

[0041] Fig. Figure 1 shows a flowchart of an embodiment of the method according to the invention. This method is used in the operation of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, which, in addition to the usual components required for imaging, includes a control unit that executes the method and an operating unit. The operating unit provides a user interface (see step S1) in which a sequence of measurement protocols for an examination procedure can be set. Step S1 also includes the processing of user input by the control unit, the corresponding adaptation of the user interface in response to this input, and the preparation for the execution of the measurement protocols in the examination procedure as soon as they are in the queue.

[0042] Fig. Figure 2 shows an example of a possible design of the user interface 1 in a schematic representation. In a queue area 2, a list is displayed showing which measurement protocols 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 have been selected for the investigation process, which have already been executed, or which are currently being executed. Available measurement protocols 9 can be dragged from an availability area 8, for example, into the queue 10, and thus into the list in queue area 2.

[0043] In the purely exemplary state shown here, measurement protocol 3 is already being executed, meaning the investigation process is already underway. This is symbolized by a corresponding icon 11, for example, a green dot. Measurement protocol 4 is selected, so that protocol parameters 13 can be displayed and, if necessary, edited in an editing window 12. Measurement protocol 4 is highlighted so that it can be seen that the contents in editing window 12 refer to it. Editing window 12 also includes a settings completion control 14, which can be used to confirm the end of editing or viewing, thus closing editing window 12. For example, a new measurement protocol 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 can then be selected, to which the contents of a new editing window 12 will refer.If a measurement protocol 9 is dragged from availability area 8 into queue 10, a corresponding editing window 12 is conveniently opened. The order of measurement protocols 4, 5, 6, 7 that have not yet been executed can also be changed using appropriate operating actions.

[0044] In the embodiment described here, each measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 in queue 10, i.e., one that has not yet been executed or is in execution, is assigned a locking control element 15 and a status icon. This status icon can be either an icon 16 indicating a processing state, for example, a yellow "Working Man," or an icon 17 indicating a locked state in which no processing is possible. The locking control element 15, which can be represented, for example, by a lock or similar symbol, allows switching between the locked state and the processing state.

[0045] In this case, the user indicates, by actuating the locking control element 15, that he intends not to modify the corresponding measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 when switching from the editing state to the locked state. Such user input also generates a verification readiness signal, the presence of which is checked in step S2 of the procedure according to Fig. 1 is checked. If the check readiness signal for a measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 is present, the measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 is marked as check-ready in step S3, for example by setting a flag. In step S2, it can also be monitored whether a termination signal indicating the end of the check readiness is present. In the specific embodiment described, such a termination signal can be generated when the system switches from the locked state back to the processing state.

[0046] Other embodiments are also conceivable, in which, for example, no locking control element 15 is present and the completion of setting a measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 in the queue 10, i.e., the user's intention not to change it further, is inferred from actuation of the setting completion control element 14, so that the check readiness signal is generated when the setting completion control element 14 is actuated. The completion signal can then be generated when the corresponding measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 is called up again in the editing window 12 or, preferably, when a change to a protocol parameter 13 actually takes place.

[0047] The readiness for verification refers to a necessary review regarding various safety requirements, which may relate to the subject of the examination, in this case a patient, and / or the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system itself. Such safety requirements include, for example, the permissible global and local SAR exposure of the patient, the avoidance of nerve stimulation of the patient, technical specifications of the MRI system (performance of the amplifiers for gradient and high-frequency coil arrays, induced eddy currents, thermal stresses), and / or the impact on the patient's implants.

[0048] To verify whether the measurement protocols 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 meet the safety requirements, verification processes are performed. These processes include at least partial simulations of at least one part of the measurement protocol, in particular the magnetic resonance sequences contained therein and thus the output gradient and radio frequency pulses. Verification processes do not necessarily have to constitute an entire process for verifying at least one safety requirement on their own, but can also be subprocesses of such an overall process. They use as input data, in particular, at least a portion of the protocol parameters (comprising protocol parameters 13) of at least the respective measurement protocol 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, in order to determine output data that directly describe compliance or non-compliance with the at least one safety requirement or are suitable for verifying compliance with the at least one safety requirement.Typically, several review processes and multiple overall processes are planned.

[0049] At least one part of the verification processes, specifically complete processes that include at least one verification step and whose output data indicates compliance or non-compliance with at least one safety requirement, is assigned at least one solution process. In the solution process, solution proposals are determined as output data that concern a change to the respective measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 and / or the sequence of measurement protocols 4, 5, 6, 7 in queue 10 and / or other measurement protocols 4, 5, 6, 7 in queue 10, and for which at least one previously violated safety requirement and ideally all other safety requirements are met.For this purpose, the solution process can, for example, proceed iteratively, proposing new sets of protocol parameters and performing all verification processes for them until at least one previously violated security requirement, or preferably all security requirements, are met.

[0050] Verification processes may require at least partial input data that exceeds the existing, defined protocol parameters of the respective measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7, which is ready for verification (in Fig. 2. Beyond the measurement protocols 5 and 6), for example, protocol parameters from other measurement protocols 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, to which reference is made, and / or the history resulting from previous measurement protocols 3, 4, 5, 6, for example, regarding the SAR exposure and / or the thermal state of the magnetic resonance device. Therefore, in step S4, a feasibility condition is used to check for each verification process whether the respective verification process is feasible. The feasibility condition indicates at least the availability of all input data necessary for the verification process. For this purpose, with a selected measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 referencing at least one other measurement protocol 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the sequence and / or input data from at least one preceding measurement protocol 3, 4, 5, 6 of the sequence, it is checked whether the other and / or the preceding measurement protocol 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 itself is already marked as ready for verification.If a verification process is feasible, the feasibility condition is expediently also applied to the solution processes associated with the verification process in order to determine their feasibility.

[0051] In principle, it is conceivable to perform all verification processes (and, if the verification fails, any solution processes) directly. However, in the present embodiment, each verification process, preferably together with its associated at least one solution process, is assigned specific availability conditions, indicating that sufficient computing resources from the control unit's computing units are available for the verification process, and especially for the solution process, and are not required by more urgent, higher-priority processes. These availability conditions are checked in step S5, and only if a corresponding availability condition is met is the assigned, feasible verification process carried out in step S6.In other words, intelligent resource management is implemented, which performs calculations for investigation and solution processes whenever suitable computing units, especially at least one protocol computer, have available processing time / resources and they are not needed by more urgent, higher-priority processes. This allows for the efficient use of any idle time.

[0052] In summary, it can be stated that verification processes are at least partially carried out while the corresponding measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 is still in queue 10, i.e., before it is called for execution. In particular, this at least partial verification (and, if necessary, solution finding) can already take place while further measurement protocols 4, 5, 6, 7 are being configured.

[0053] In step S7, it is then checked whether the verification process failed, i.e., whether the output data indicates that at least one of the associated safety requirements is not met. If at least one safety requirement is met, no further action is required; however, the output data is at least saved, or, for example, a flag is used to indicate that the measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 meets the corresponding safety requirement. If, for the sake of clarity, a part of the input data of a completed verification process, in particular protocol parameter 13, is changed at a later time, the results are discarded.

[0054] If at least one security requirement is violated, step S8 checks whether the associated solution process is feasible. If so, step S9 executes the process to determine possible solutions. Even if the solution process is not feasible, step S10 issues a warning indicating that the security requirement is not met and further action is required. (See below.) Fig. 2, the information is at least as much indicated by a notification icon 18 in the list-like display of the queue 10, the respective measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7, in Fig. 2. Measurement protocol 6 is assigned as an example. If the corresponding measurement protocol 6 is then selected during the ongoing activity of step S1, the corresponding suggested solutions, if available, are displayed, and the user can accept them or make changes to protocol parameter 3. All of this can also be done while the corresponding measurement protocol 6 is still in the queue.

[0055] It goes without saying that any outstanding verification and, if applicable, resolution processes will be carried out no later than when the corresponding measurement protocol 4, 5, 6, 7 is next in line for execution, i.e., when it leaves the queue. At that point, it will also be marked as ready for verification.

[0056] Fig. Figure 3 schematically shows an embodiment of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device 19 according to the invention. As is generally known, this device comprises a main magnet unit 20, which has a cylindrical patient receptacle 21 into which a patient can be inserted for examination using a patient table (not shown in detail). The main magnet unit 20 also contains the main magnet, which is preferably superconducting, and which generates the main magnetic field. The MRI device 19 further comprises a gradient coil arrangement surrounding the patient receptacle 21 and a high-frequency coil arrangement, which may also include sections surrounding the patient receptacle 21 as well as local coils. Amplifiers are assigned to the respective coil arrangements for generating gradient pulses and high-frequency pulses.

[0057] The magnetic resonance device 19 further comprises an operating device 22, which may include a display device 23 and an input device 24, for example a keyboard and / or a mouse. The operating device 22 may be located at least partially outside a shielded enclosure in which the main magnet unit 20 is arranged.

[0058] The operation of the magnetic resonance device 19 is controlled by a control unit 25, which is also configured to carry out the method according to the invention. The control unit 25 can comprise a plurality of computing units 32, in particular processors.

[0059] Fig.Figure 4 shows the functional structure of the control unit 25, at least with regard to the execution of the method according to the invention. The control unit 25 initially comprises a storage medium 26 in which information of various kinds can be stored, for example, for carrying out verification processes, solution processes, and other calculation processes and / or their results and protocol parameters.

[0060] The provision of user interface 1 according to step S1 is controlled by a user interaction unit 27 of the control device 25. The user interaction unit 27 also controls the operation of user interface 1, including the provision of locking controls 15 and setting completion controls 14. It is also configured to output the information 18 according to step S10.

[0061] The control unit 25 further comprises a verification unit 28 for verifying entered measurement protocols 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 in at least one verification process with regard to compliance with at least one safety requirement relating to the object under investigation and / or the magnetic resonance device 19, wherein the measurement protocols 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are executed only if each of the at least one safety requirement is met. In the event of a failed verification, the verification unit 28 can also perform the corresponding at least one resolution process. The verification unit 28 is thus specifically designed to perform steps S6, S7, S8, and S9.

[0062] In a marking unit 29, upon receiving a verification readiness signal indicating user input describing the completion of setting a selected measurement protocol 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 for an investigation process by a user, the selected measurement protocol 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 can be marked as ready for verification and is thus configured to perform steps S2 and S3. The control unit 25 further comprises an feasibility unit 30 for verifying the feasibility conditions according to step S4 and a resource management unit 31, which, according to step S5, triggers the actual execution of verification and resolution processes depending on the fulfillment of the respective availability conditions, in particular as long as the respective measurement protocol 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 is in queue 10, i.e., has not yet been called for execution.

[0063] Of course, additional functional units can also be provided.

[0064] Regardless of the grammatical gender of a particular term, persons with male, female or other gender identities are included.

Claims

[1] Computer-implemented method for operating a magnetic resonance imaging device (19), which includes an operating device (22) that provides a user interface (1), in particular a graphical one, for setting a sequence of measurement protocols (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9) to be performed on an object of investigation in an examination procedure, wherein set measurement protocols (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) are checked in at least one verification procedure with regard to compliance with at least one safety requirement relating to the object of investigation and / or the magnetic resonance device (19) and are executed only if each of the at least one safety requirement is met, wherein upon receipt of a verification readiness signal indicating a user input describing the completion of setting a selected measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) for an examination procedure by a user,The selected measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) is marked as ready for verification, so that at least one of the verification processes can already be carried out and / or is carried out before the measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) is next in line for execution according to the sequence in the investigation process, in particular already during the user setting of at least one further measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7). characterized by, that to determine the feasibility of a respective verification process, a feasibility condition is checked which indicates at least the presence of all input data necessary for the verification process, wherein, in the case of a selected measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) referencing at least one other measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) of the sequence and / or input data of at least one preceding measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) of the sequence, the feasibility condition checks whether the other and / or the preceding measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) itself is already marked as ready for verification. [2] Method according to claim 1, characterized by that either - with the marking as ready for review, all feasible review processes are carried out or - depending on utilization information describing the utilization of at least one computing unit (32) of the magnetic resonance device (19), an availability condition, in particular specific for the respective feasible verification process, which indicates the existence of sufficient free computing resources, is evaluated, if the feasible verification process is carried out. [3] Method according to claim 2, characterized by, that prioritization is used when allocating computational resources, wherein verification operations are assigned a lower priority than at least one computation operation related to the user interface (1), in particular than any other computation operation used for setting and / or preparing the investigation operation, and / or at least one computation operation used for executing a measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7), in particular any other computation operation used for executing a measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7). [4] Method according to any of the preceding claims, characterized by , that the verification readiness signal is generated when a setting completion control element (14) of the user interface (1) is activated in a display for setting the selected measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7). [5] Method according to any one of claims 1 to 4, characterized by, that the verification readiness signal is generated when a locking control element (15) is actuated, which causes a blocking of the change of the selected measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7). [6] Method according to any of the preceding claims, characterized by , that if a protocol parameter used as input data in a previously performed verification process is changed, the previous results of the verification process will be discarded. [7] Method according to any of the preceding claims, characterized by, that if a result of a previously carried out verification process indicates the need to change an associated measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) or the sequence of measurement protocols (3, 4, 5, 6, 7), at least one solution process to determine proposed solutions for the change is carried out, in particular already during the user setting of at least one further measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and / or a notification information (18) indicating this necessity is issued to the user in the user interface (1). [8] Method according to claim 7, characterized by , that the information (18) is at least partially displayed in a list-like presentation of the measurement protocols (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) of the sequence, assigned to the respective measurement protocol (3, 4, 5, 6, 7), in particular adjacent to. [9] Method according to any of the preceding claims, characterized by, that at least one of the at least one verification process concerns a SAR load of the subject under investigation and / or a nerve load of the subject under investigation and / or the suitability of fields and field profiles for an implant of the subject under investigation and / or the assurance of a desired image quality of the examination process and / or compliance with at least one technical specification of the magnetic resonance device (19), in particular with regard to a gradient coil arrangement and / or a high-frequency coil arrangement and / or an amplifier arrangement, and / or the thermal behavior of the magnetic resonance device (19). [10] Method according to any of the preceding claims, characterized by that at least one verification process concerns a sub-process of an overall process that can be carried out independently of the rest of the overall process. [11] Magnetic resonance device (19) comprising an operating device (22) which provides a user interface (1), in particular a graphical one, for setting a sequence of measurement protocols (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) to be carried out in an investigation procedure on an object under investigation, and a control device (25) which is configured to carry out a method according to one of the preceding claims. [12] Computer program which, when executed on a control device (25) of a magnetic resonance device (19), causes the latter to perform the steps of a method according to any one of claims 1 to 10. [13] Electronically readable data carrier on which a computer program according to claim 12 is stored.

Images