Literature DB >> 1734174

On the precision of diffusion/perfusion imaging by gradient sensitization.

J Pekar1, C T Moonen, P C van Zijl.   

Abstract

Computer simulation is used to assess the precision and accuracy of diffusion and perfusion parameters derived from a set of gradient-sensitized images. Under ideal experimental conditions, a moderate signal-to-noise level (ca. 40) suffices to estimate diffusion coefficients to within 20% relative precision. However, estimation of a typical cerebral perfusion fraction of 5% to within 20% relative precision requires signal-to-noise levels of ca. 400. Simulations also show that systematic errors in perfusion fraction estimation, as well as underestimation of the uncertainties in perfusion parameters (by chi-squared analysis), will be found at moderate signal-to-noise levels.

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1734174     DOI: 10.1002/mrm.1910230113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   4.668


  44 in total

1.  Reducing the influence of b-value selection on diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: evaluation of a revised monoexponential model within a clinical setting.

Authors:  Yousef Mazaheri; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Debra A Goldman; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging: comparison of diffusion and perfusion characteristics between nasopharyngeal carcinoma and post-chemoradiation fibrosis.

Authors:  Vincent Lai; Xiao Li; Victor Ho Fun Lee; Ka On Lam; Queenie Chan; Pek Lan Khong
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Spatially constrained incoherent motion method improves diffusion-weighted MRI signal decay analysis in the liver and spleen.

Authors:  Vahid Taimouri; Onur Afacan; Jeannette M Perez-Rossello; Michael J Callahan; Robert V Mulkern; Simon K Warfield; Moti Freiman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Liver intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) magnetic resonance imaging: a comprehensive review of published data on normal values and applications for fibrosis and tumor evaluation.

Authors:  Yáo T Li; Jean-Pierre Cercueil; Jing Yuan; Weitian Chen; Romaric Loffroy; Yì Xiáng J Wáng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2017-02

5.  Temporal evolution of perfusion parameters in brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery: comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Anish Kapadia; Hatef Mehrabian; John Conklin; Sean P Symons; Pejman J Maralani; Greg J Stanisz; Arjun Sahgal; Hany Soliman; Chinthaka C Heyn
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 4.130

6.  Comparison of methods for estimation of the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion coefficient (D) and perfusion fraction (f).

Authors:  Oscar Jalnefjord; Mats Andersson; Mikael Montelius; Göran Starck; Anna-Karin Elf; Viktor Johanson; Johanna Svensson; Maria Ljungberg
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 2.310

7.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of fetal lung maturation in sheep: effect of prenatal cortisone administration on ADC values.

Authors:  Chressen Catharina Much; Björn Phillip Schoennagel; Jin Yamamura; Ralph Buchert; Hendrik Kooijman; Anne-Kathrin Schätzle; Gerhard Adam; Ulrike Wedegaertner
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-02-16       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Are we ready to image the incoherent molecular motion in our minds?

Authors:  Sotirios Bisdas
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2013-04-21       Impact factor: 2.804

9.  In vivo magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Technological advances and opportunities for applications continue to abound.

Authors:  Peter van Zijl; Linda Knutsson
Journal:  J Magn Reson       Date:  2019-07-09       Impact factor: 2.229

10.  Evaluation of breast cancer using intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) histogram analysis: comparison with malignant status, histological subtype, and molecular prognostic factors.

Authors:  Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Sungheon G Kim; Steven H Baete; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.