Anders Kristoffersen1. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, St. Olavs Hospital HF, Trondheim, Norway. Anders.Kristoffersen@stolav.no
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the effects of Rician bias and physiological noise on parameter estimation for non-Gaussian diffusion models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At high b-values, there are deviations from monoexponential signal decay known as non-Gaussian diffusion. Magnitude images have a Rician distribution, which introduces a bias that appears as non-Gaussian diffusion. A second factor that complicates parameter estimation is physiological noise. It has an intensity that depends on the b-value in a complicated manner. Hence, the signal distribution is unknown a priori. By measuring a large number of averages, however, the variance at each b-value can be estimated. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we compared uncorrected estimation to a corrected scheme that involves fitting to the mean value of the Rician distribution. We also evaluated effects of weighting with the inverse of the estimated variance in least-squares fitting. A human brain experiment illustrates parameter estimation effects and identifies brain regions affected by physiological noise. RESULTS: The simulations show that the corrected estimator is very accurate. The uncorrected estimator is heavily biased. In the human brain experiment, the magnitude of the relative bias ranges from 6%-31%, depending on the diffusion model. Weighting has negligible effects on accuracy, but improves precision in the presence of physiological noise. At low b-values, physiological noise is prominent in cerebrospinal fluid. At high b-values there is physiological noise in white matter structures near the ventricles. CONCLUSION: Bias correction is essential and weighting may be beneficial. Physiological noise has significant effects.
PURPOSE: To assess the effects of Rician bias and physiological noise on parameter estimation for non-Gaussian diffusion models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At high b-values, there are deviations from monoexponential signal decay known as non-Gaussian diffusion. Magnitude images have a Rician distribution, which introduces a bias that appears as non-Gaussian diffusion. A second factor that complicates parameter estimation is physiological noise. It has an intensity that depends on the b-value in a complicated manner. Hence, the signal distribution is unknown a priori. By measuring a large number of averages, however, the variance at each b-value can be estimated. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we compared uncorrected estimation to a corrected scheme that involves fitting to the mean value of the Rician distribution. We also evaluated effects of weighting with the inverse of the estimated variance in least-squares fitting. A human brain experiment illustrates parameter estimation effects and identifies brain regions affected by physiological noise. RESULTS: The simulations show that the corrected estimator is very accurate. The uncorrected estimator is heavily biased. In the human brain experiment, the magnitude of the relative bias ranges from 6%-31%, depending on the diffusion model. Weighting has negligible effects on accuracy, but improves precision in the presence of physiological noise. At low b-values, physiological noise is prominent in cerebrospinal fluid. At high b-values there is physiological noise in white matter structures near the ventricles. CONCLUSION: Bias correction is essential and weighting may be beneficial. Physiological noise has significant effects.
Authors: Mustapha Bouhrara; David A Reiter; Hasan Celik; Jean-Marie Bonny; Vanessa Lukas; Kenneth W Fishbein; Richard G Spencer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Donnie Cameron; Mustapha Bouhrara; David A Reiter; Kenneth W Fishbein; Seongjin Choi; Christopher M Bergeron; Luigi Ferrucci; Richard G Spencer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Jeff L Zhang; Steven Baete; Riccardo Lattanzi; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Sungheon Kim; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Farida Grinberg; Ezequiel Farrher; Luisa Ciobanu; Françoise Geffroy; Denis Le Bihan; N Jon Shah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240