Medical Image Reconstruction Parameters with Bi-Level Quality Feedback

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing medical imaging technologies rely heavily on operator-dependent adjustment of imaging parameters, leading to inconsistent image quality, with novice operators struggling to achieve high-quality results, and no-reference image quality metrics lacking correlation with perceived ultrasound B-mode image quality.

Innovation Solution

A bi-level approach using both no-reference and full-reference image quality metrics to iteratively modify imaging parameters, where no-reference metrics guide optimization in clinical contexts and full-reference metrics provide physical accuracy, ensuring high-quality medical imaging data.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If operator-dependent adjustment of imaging parameters is used, then image quality can be improved by experienced operators, but the process becomes subjective and inconsistent across different operators

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimage qualityVSAvoidoperator dependency
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-adjustment of imaging parameters by automatically analyzing the captured image and modifying parameters based on objective quality metrics, eliminating the need for manual operator intervention and ensuring consistent results across different users

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements a feedback loop where image quality metrics are calculated from the captured images, and these metrics are used to automatically adjust imaging parameters in subsequent captures, creating a closed-loop control system that continuously optimizes image quality

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Extent of automation

If no-reference image quality metrics are used, then automated workflow is enabled, but the metrics do not correlate well with perceived ultrasound B-mode image quality

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomated workflowVSAvoidimage quality correlation
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system introduces a trained machine learning model as an intermediary that bridges the gap between no-reference metrics and perceived image quality, translating automated measurements into predictions that correlate with human assessment while maintaining workflow automation

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The machine learning model is pre-trained on a dataset of images with known quality assessments before deployment, allowing it to predict perceived image quality accurately from no-reference metrics without requiring manual calibration during actual use

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Measurement precision

If full reference image quality metrics are used, then high correlation with subjective judgement is achieved, but reference images are typically absent in clinical environments

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecorrelation with subjective judgementVSAvoidadaptability to clinical environment
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system creates a virtual reference model through machine learning that replicates the quality assessment capabilities of full-reference metrics without requiring actual reference images, enabling the use of FR-IQM accuracy in clinical settings where only no-reference conditions exist

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Data Source

PatentEP4531687B1Improving the image quality of medical images
Publication Date: 2026.02.18 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV
  • EP4531687B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4531687B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4531687B1 patent drawingFigure 3~4

AI summary

A mechanism for generating a set of imaging parameters used to reconstruct medical imaging data from raw or partially-processed medical imaging data. In an inner loop, the imaging parameter(s) are modified using one or more first image metrics produced using a no-reference image quality metric technique on medical imaging data produced using the imaging parameter(s). In an outer loop, the imaging parameter(s) are modified using one or more second image metrics produced using a full-reference image quality metric technique on comparison medical imaging data. The comparison medical imaging data is produced by processing raw or partially-processed reference medical imaging data using the imaging parameter(s).