We have located links that may give you full text access.
To mask or not to mask? Investigating the impact of accounting for spatial frequency distributions and susceptibility sources on QSM quality.
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2023 March 32
PURPOSE: Estimating magnetic susceptibility using MRI depends on inverting a forward relationship between the susceptibility and measured Larmor frequency. However, an often-overlooked constraint in susceptibility fitting is that the Larmor frequency is only measured inside the sample, and after successful background field removal, susceptibility sources should only reside inside the same sample. Here, we test the impact of accounting for these constraints in susceptibility fitting.
THEORY AND METHODS: Two different digital brain phantoms with scalar susceptibility were examined. We used the MEDI phantom, a simple phantom with no background fields, to examine the effect of the imposed constraints for various levels of SNR. Next, we considered the QSM reconstruction challenge 2.0 phantom with and without background fields. We estimated the parameter accuracy of openly-available QSM algorithms by comparing fitting results to the ground truth. Next, we implemented the mentioned constraints and compared to the standard approach.
RESULTS: Including the spatial distribution of frequencies and susceptibility sources decreased the RMS-error compared to standard QSM on both brain phantoms when background fields were absent. When background field removal was unsuccessful, as is presumably the case in most in vivo conditions, it is better to allow sources outside the brain.
CONCLUSION: Informing QSM algorithms about the location of susceptibility sources and where Larmor frequency was measured improves susceptibility fitting for realistic SNR levels and efficient background field removal. However, the latter remains the bottleneck of the algorithm. Allowing for external sources regularizes unsuccessful background field removal and is currently the best strategy in vivo.
THEORY AND METHODS: Two different digital brain phantoms with scalar susceptibility were examined. We used the MEDI phantom, a simple phantom with no background fields, to examine the effect of the imposed constraints for various levels of SNR. Next, we considered the QSM reconstruction challenge 2.0 phantom with and without background fields. We estimated the parameter accuracy of openly-available QSM algorithms by comparing fitting results to the ground truth. Next, we implemented the mentioned constraints and compared to the standard approach.
RESULTS: Including the spatial distribution of frequencies and susceptibility sources decreased the RMS-error compared to standard QSM on both brain phantoms when background fields were absent. When background field removal was unsuccessful, as is presumably the case in most in vivo conditions, it is better to allow sources outside the brain.
CONCLUSION: Informing QSM algorithms about the location of susceptibility sources and where Larmor frequency was measured improves susceptibility fitting for realistic SNR levels and efficient background field removal. However, the latter remains the bottleneck of the algorithm. Allowing for external sources regularizes unsuccessful background field removal and is currently the best strategy in vivo.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app