Training deep learning based dynamic MR image reconstruction using synthetic fractals

arXiv cs.CV / 4/1/2026

💬 OpinionSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The study explores whether synthetically generated fractal (quaternion Julia fractal) datasets can train deep learning models for dynamic MRI reconstruction without relying on restricted clinical cardiac MRI data.
  • It simulates multi-coil radial undersampled k-space from fractal-generated 2D+time images, then trains a 3D U-Net artefact suppression model on this synthetic data and compares it to the same architecture trained on real cardiac MRI.
  • Evaluations on prospectively acquired real-time cardiac MRI from 10 patients show no significant qualitative ranking difference between models trained on fractals (F-DL) versus true cardiac MRI (CMR-DL).
  • Both F-DL and CMR-DL outperform classical baselines (compressed sensing and low-rank deep image prior) in image quality, with clinical metrics (ventricular volumes and ejection fraction) matching closely between F-DL and CMR-DL.
  • The authors conclude that fractal training data can serve as an open, scalable alternative and may support more generalizable dynamic MRI reconstruction models.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate whether synthetically generated fractal data can be used to train deep learning (DL) models for dynamic MRI reconstruction, thereby avoiding the privacy, licensing, and availability limitations associated with cardiac MR training datasets. Methods: A training dataset was generated using quaternion Julia fractals to produce 2D+time images. Multi-coil MRI acquisition was simulated to generate paired fully sampled and radially undersampled k-space data. A 3D UNet deep artefact suppression model was trained using these fractal data (F-DL) and compared with an identical model trained on cardiac MRI data (CMR-DL). Both models were evaluated on prospectively acquired radial real-time cardiac MRI from 10 patients. Reconstructions were compared against compressed sensing(CS) and low-rank deep image prior (LR-DIP). All reconstrctuions were ranked for image quality, while ventricular volumes and ejection fraction were compared with reference breath-hold cine MRI. Results: There was no significant difference in qualitative ranking between F-DL and CMR-DL (p=0.9), while both outperformed CS and LR-DIP (p<0.001). Ventricular volumes and function derived from F-DL were similar to CMR-DL, showing no significant bias and accptable limits of agreement compared to reference cine imaging. However, LR-DIP had a signifcant bias (p=0.016) and wider lmits of agreement. Conclusion: DL models trained using synthetic fractal data can reconstruct real-time cardiac MRI with image quality and clinical measurements comparable to models trained on true cardiac MRI data. Fractal training data provide an open, scalable alternative to clinical datasets and may enable development of more generalisable DL reconstruction models for dynamic MRI.