MASC: Metal-Aware Sampling and Correction via Reinforcement Learning for Accelerated MRI
Authors: Zhengyi Lu, Ming Lu, Chongyu Qu, Junchao Zhu, Junlin Guo, Marilyn Lionts, Yanfan Zhu, Yuechen Yang, Tianyuan Yao, Jayasai Rajagopal, Bennett Allan Landman, Xiao Wang, Xinqiang Yan, Yuankai Huo
Organizations: Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA 37215 · Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA 37232 · Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA 37831
Metal implants in MRI cause severe artifacts that degrade image quality and hinder clinical diagnosis. Traditional approaches address metal artifact reduction (MAR) and accelerated MRI acquisition as separate problems. We propose MASC, a unified reinforcement learning framework that jointly optimizes metal-aware k-space sampling and artifact correction for accelerated MRI. To enable supervised training, we construct a paired MRI dataset using physics-based simulation, generating k-space data and reconstructions for phantoms with and without metal implants. This paired dataset provides simulated 3D MRI scans with and without metal implants, where each metal-corrupted sample has an exactly matched clean reference, enabling direct supervision for both artifact reduction and acquisition policy learning. We formulate active MRI acquisition as a sequential decision-making problem, where an artifact-aware Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) agent learns to select k-space phase-encoding lines under a limited acquisition budget. The agent operates on undersampled reconstructions processed through a U-Net-based MAR network, learning patterns that maximize reconstruction quality. We further propose an end-to-end training scheme where the acquisition policy learns to select k-space lines that best support artifact removal while the MAR network simultaneously adapts to the resulting undersampling patterns. Experiments demonstrate that MASC's learned policies outperform conventional sampling strategies, and end-to-end training improves performance compared to using a frozen pre-trained MAR network, validating the benefit of joint optimization. Cross-dataset experiments on FastMRI with physics-based artifact simulation further confirm generalization to realistic clinical MRI data. The code and models of MASC have been made publicly available: https://github.com/hrlblab/masc
Figures & tables
Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4
Method
MAR
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
MSE ↓
NMSE ↓
MAE ↓
Random
×
0.3214 ± 0.0440
11.72 ± 1.11
0.0695 ± 0.0173
0.3374 ± 0.0929
0.2199 ± 0.0333
✓
0.6949 ± 0.0463
18.79 ± 1.42
0.0140 ± 0.0049
0.0680 ± 0.0243
0.0708 ± 0.0143
Random-LowBias
×
0.3556 ± 0.0444
12.70 ± 1.38
0.0566 ± 0.0193
0.2696 ± 0.0718
0.1877 ± 0.0332
✓
0.6929 ± 0.0516
19.10 ± 1.45
0.0131 ± 0.0056
0.0635 ± 0.0241
0.0716 ± 0.0170
Equispaced
×
0.2648 ± 0.0380
11.26 ± 0.92
0.0764 ± 0.0152
0.3716 ± 0.0846
0.2331 ± 0.0297
✓
0.4085 ± 0.0478
12.82 ± 1.05
0.0538 ± 0.0131
0.2607 ± 0.0659
0.1546 ± 0.0237
Table 1: Comparison with baseline acquisition strategies at 10× acceleration (2 initial + 18 budget lines). Baselines are evaluated with and without MAR. Results are mean ± std on the test set. Best results in bold . All improvements are statistically significant ( p<0.001 , paired t-test).
Configuration
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
MSE ↓
NMSE ↓
MAE ↓
Clean-trained PPO
0.5120 ± 0.0559
14.47 ± 3.19
0.0463 ± 0.0348
0.2137 ± 0.1309
0.1465 ± 0.0606
Metal-trained PPO
0.4758 ± 0.0465
14.99 ± 2.47
0.0373 ± 0.0220
0.1766 ± 0.0926
0.1341 ± 0.0425
Clean PPO + Pretrained MAR
0.6640 ± 0.0600
17.08 ± 1.68
0.0212 ± 0.0095
0.1020 ± 0.0400
0.0945 ± 0.0262
Metal PPO + Pretrained MAR
0.6874 ± 0.0621
17.72 ± 1.59
0.0182 ± 0.0077
0.0888 ± 0.0384
0.0820 ± 0.0213
MASC (Ours)
0.7224 ± 0.0408
19.73 ± 1.28
0.0111 ± 0.0036
0.0546 ± 0.0190
0.0640 ± 0.0121
Table 2: Ablation study on training strategy components at 10× acceleration. Configurations progressively add metal-aware training, MAR integration, and end-to-end optimization. Results are mean ± std on the test set. Best results in bold . MASC significantly outperforms all ablation variants ( p<0.001 , paired t-test).
Method (with MAR)
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
MSE ↓
NMSE ↓
MAE ↓
Random
0.5562 ± 0.0434
20.41 ± 2.73
0.0111 ± 0.0079
0.0642 ± 0.0762
0.0773 ± 0.0282
Random-LowBias
0.5636 ± 0.0428
20.41 ± 2.56
0.0108 ± 0.0064
0.0558 ± 0.0305
0.0767 ± 0.0245
Equispaced
0.5402 ± 0.0465
20.12 ± 2.57
0.0116 ± 0.0071
0.0663 ± 0.0652
0.0790 ± 0.0262
Center-out
0.5072 ± 0.0552
17.79 ± 2.67
0.0199 ± 0.0119
0.0994 ± 0.0417
0.1096 ± 0.0373
DQN
0.5376 ± 0.0483
19.52 ± 2.36
0.0129 ± 0.0068
0.0686 ± 0.0375
0.0851 ± 0.0255
SS-DDQN
0.5305 ± 0.0487
19.55 ± 2.36
0.0127 ± 0.0066
0.0682 ± 0.0389
0.0842 ± 0.0244
Table 3: Cross-dataset generalization at 10× acceleration. All methods are trained on our physics-based simulation dataset and evaluated on the FastMRI-based Metal Artifacts Dataset. The baselines are post-processed with MAR for fair comparison. Results are mean ± std on the test set. Best results in bold . MASC significantly outperforms all baselines ( p<0.001 , paired t-test).
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Characteristic
Value
Subjects
200
Age (years)
62.0 ± 15.4 (range: 11–95)
Sex
Male
115 (57.5%)
Female
84 (42.0%)
Not reported
1 (0.5%)
Appendix
Table 4: Dataset demographics (n=200). Summary of patient characteristics from the AutoPET dataset used for MRI simulation.
Method
MAR
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
MSE ↓
NMSE ↓
MAE ↓
Random
×
0.4037 ± 0.0351
13.95 ± 2.37
0.0471 ± 0.0290
0.2193 ± 0.1143
0.1518 ± 0.0453
✓
0.6789 ± 0.0683
18.36 ± 1.87
0.0162 ± 0.0089
0.0760 ± 0.0358
0.0861 ± 0.0262
Random-LowBias
×
0.4317 ± 0.0441
13.59 ± 2.94
0.0544 ± 0.0361
0.2525 ± 0.1441
0.1616 ± 0.0562
✓
0.6580 ± 0.0875
18.39 ± 2.39
0.0175 ± 0.0156
0.0809 ± 0.0579
0.0885 ± 0.0371
Equispaced
×
0.3670 ± 0.0252
13.77 ± 2.26
0.0486 ± 0.0288
0.2254 ± 0.1120
0.1555 ± 0.0443
✓
0.5716 ± 0.0585
17.01 ± 1.56
0.0214 ± 0.0099
0.1018 ± 0.0391
0.0980 ± 0.0256
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison with baseline acquisition strategies at 5× acceleration (8 initial + 32 budget lines). Baselines are evaluated with and without metal artifact reduction (MAR). Results are mean ± std on the test set. Best results in bold . MASC significantly outperforms all baselines ( p<0.001 , paired t-test).
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA · Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA · Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA