IP Library Granted Patent US 12,608,806
Granted Patent B2
US 12,608,806 · App. 18/297,382 · Granted Apr 21, 2026

Automated medical image quality control system

Inventors: Ben Andrew Duffy (Palo Alto, CA); Tao Zhang (Menlo Park, CA)
Assignee: Subtle Medical, Inc.
G06T7/0014G06T2207/20081G06T2207/20084G06T2207/20092G06T2207/30004G06T2207/30168
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,608,806
App. No.
18/297,382
Granted
Apr 21, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

An automated image quality control system is provided. The system comprises: a first component including a first deep learning network model for estimating a quality of medical images acquired by an imaging device; and a second component for determining whether the medical images are out of a distribution of a training dataset used for training the first deep learning network model.

Claims (25)

1 . An automated image quality control system comprising:

(a) a first component including a first deep learning network model trained to output a quality score indicative of a quality level of medical images acquired by an imaging device, wherein the medical images are at least one of the following imaging modalities: Positron Emission Tomography (PET), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), ultrasound, X-ray imaging, Computed Tomography (CT) and wherein the first deep learning network model comprises a plurality of intermediate layers;

(b) a second component implemented by one or more of the plurality of intermediate layers, wherein the second component is trained to detect one or more of the medical images are out of a distribution of a training dataset used for training the first deep learning network model (out-of-distribution) thereby distinguishing an anomalous caused by out of the distribution from a low quality of the input medical images; and

(c) a controller in communication with the imaging device, and upon receiving the quality score from the first component or a detection of the out-of-distribution from the second component, automatically adjust one or more acquisition parameters for acquiring medical images using the imaging device.

2 . The automated image quality control system of claim 1 , wherein the second component is configured to detect the out-of-distribution using one or more intermediate layer activations of the first deep learning network model during the same forward pass of the first deep learning network model that produces the quality score.

3 . The automated image quality control system of claim 2 , wherein the second component is configured to (i) extract one or more feature maps from the one or more intermediate layers, (ii) for each extracted feature map generate a distance equal to a Mahalanobis distance metric between the feature map and a corresponding reference distribution of feature-map activation previously obtained from the training dataset used to train the first deep learning network model.

4 . The automated image quality control system of claim 3 , wherein the second component is configured to further (iii) compute a combined distance score as a weighted sum of the computed Mahalanobis distance metrics, and (iv) compare the combined distance score with a threshold to determine whether the medical images are out of the distribution of the training dataset.

5 . The automated image quality control system of claim 1 , wherein the training dataset excludes medical images that are out of distribution.

6 . The automated image quality control system of claim 1 , wherein upon detecting one or more of the medical images are out of the distribution of the training dataset, the one or more of the medical images are removed from the medical images to be processed by the first component.

7 . The automated image quality control system of claim 1 , wherein the training dataset includes low quality image data simulated using high quality image data.

8 . The automated image quality control system of claim 4 , further comprising a third component for estimating a registration quality.

9 . The automated image quality control system of claim 8 , wherein estimating the registration quality comprises generating a score indicative of an alignment level between the medical images.

10 . The automated image quality control system of claim 9 , wherein the medical images are acquired using different acquisition parameters.

11 . The automated image quality control system of claim 9 , wherein the score is generated using a second deep learning model.

12 . The automated image quality control system of claim 8 , further comprising a fourth component for calibrating the automated image quality control system to adapt to different tasks, sites, scanners, or quality standards.

13 . The automated image quality control system of claim 12 , wherein calibrating the automated image quality control system comprises receiving a user input indicative of site-specific, scanner-specific, or task-specific quality preferences and, in response to the received user input, adjusting at least one of: a threshold used by the second component to detect the out-of-distribution, a weight used to compute the combined distance score, and a mapping between the quality score and a recommended acquisition parameter.

14 . The automated image quality control system of claim 12 , wherein calibrating the automated image quality control system is performed automatically without user intervention.

15 . The automated image quality control system of claim 12 , wherein the fourth component is configured to distinguish between the different tasks, sites, scanners, or quality standards based at least in part on the registration quality estimated by the third component and selects a corresponding pre-calibrated parameter set for the first deep learning network model from a plurality of stored calibration parameter sets.

16 . The automated image quality control system of claim 1 , wherein the controller comprises a fifth component for generating real-time feedback for adjusting the one or more acquisition parameters.

17 . The automated image quality control system of claim 16 , wherein the real-time feedback comprises an instruction to the imaging device to reacquire a medical image with the one or more adjusted acquisition parameters.

18 . A computer-implemented method for automating image quality control comprising:

(a) providing a first component including a first deep learning network model trained to output a quality score indicative of a quality level of medical images acquired by an imaging device, wherein the medical images are at least one of the following imaging modalities: Positron Emission Tomography (PET), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), ultrasound, X-ray imaging, Computed Tomography (CT) and wherein the first deep learning network model comprises a plurality of intermediate layers;

(b) providing a second component implemented by one or more of the plurality of intermediate layers, wherein the second component is trained to detect one or more of the medical images are out of a distribution of a training dataset used for training the first deep learning network model (out-of-distribution) thereby distinguishing an anomalous caused by out of the distribution from a low quality of the input medical images; and

(c) upon receiving, by a controller in communication with the imaging device, the quality score from the first component or a detection of the out-of-distribution from the second component, automatically adjusting one or more acquisition parameters for acquiring medical images using the imaging device.

19 . The computer-implemented method of claim 18 , wherein the second component is configured to detect the out-of-distribution using one or more intermediate layer activations of the first deep learning network model during the same forward pass of the first deep learning network model that produces the quality score.

Assignments (2)
GRANT OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENTS Recorded May 29, 2026
From: SUBTLE MEDICAL, INC.
To: MS PRIVATE CREDIT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC
Reel/Frame 075648/0001 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Apr 11, 2023
From: DUFFY, BEN ANDREW; ZHANG, TAO
To: SUBTLE MEDICAL, INC.
Reel/Frame 063279/0913 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation PCTUS2021059480 · Nov 16, 2021
Provisional Application 63117330 · Nov 23, 2020
Related Publication 20230245314A1 · Aug 3, 2023
References Cited (26)
US 10499857B1 · Nguyen · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 10716515B2 · Gustafsson et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20160034809A1 · Trenholm et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170372155A1 · Odry et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180232878A1 · Braun et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180330511A1 · Ha et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180374193A1 · Park · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180374194A1 · Park · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20200410696A1 · Yan · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20220012874A1 · Maier-Hein · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20230377314A1 · Pezzotti · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20230394652A1 · Pezzotti · 2023 [cited by examiner]
CN 110858315A · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2022108912A1 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
Abdar et al.: A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges. Information Fusion 76:243-297 (2001). [cited by applicant]
Daxberger et al.: Bayesian Variational Autoencoders for Unsupervised Out-of-Distribution Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.05651, pp. 1-21 (2020). [cited by applicant]
European Patent Application No. EP 21895438.6 Extended European Search Report dated Dec. 10, 2024. [cited by applicant]
Padhy et al.: Revisiting One-vs-All Classifiers for Predictive Uncertainty and Out-of-Distribution Detection in Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.05134, pp. 1-10 (2020). [cited by applicant]
Shen et al.: Multi-Domain Image Completion for Random Missing Input Data. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 40(4):1113-1122 (2021). [cited by applicant]
Karimi, et al. “Improving Calibration and Out-of-Distribution Detection in Medical Image Segmentation with Convolutional Neural Networks.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.06569 (2020). [cited by applicant]
Kumar, et al., “Verified uncertainty calibration.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2019. [cited by applicant]
Lee et al. “A simple unified framework for detecting out-of-distribution samples and adversarial attacks.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2018. [cited by applicant]
Meding, et al., “Automatic detection of motion artifacts in MR images using CNNS.” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2017. [cited by applicant]
PCT/US2021/059480 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 3, 2022. [cited by applicant]
Rousseeuw, Peter, “Least median of squares regression.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 79.388 (1984): 871-880. [cited by applicant]
Shaw, et al. “A Heteroscedastic Uncertainty Model for Decoupling Sources of MRI Image Quality.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.11927 (2020). [cited by applicant]