PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used in human brain research to evaluate the effects of healthy aging and development, as well as neurological disorders. Although standardized methods for quality assurance of human MRI instruments have been established, such approaches have typically not been translated to small animal imaging. We present a method for the generation and analysis of customized phantoms for small animal MRI systems that allows rapid and accurate system stability monitoring. METHODS: Computer-aided design software was used to produce a customized phantom using a rapid prototyping printer. Automated registration algorithms were used on three-dimensional images of the phantom to allow system stability to be easily monitored over time. RESULTS: The design of the custom phantom allowed reliable placement relative to the imaging coil. Automated registration showed superior ability to detect gradient changes reflected in the images than with manual measurements. Registering images acquired over time allowed monitoring of gradient drifts of less than one percent. CONCLUSION: A low cost, MRI compatible phantom was successfully designed using computer-aided design software and a three-dimensional printer. Registering phantom images acquired over time allows monitoring of gradient stability of the MRI system.
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used in human brain research to evaluate the effects of healthy aging and development, as well as neurological disorders. Although standardized methods for quality assurance of human MRI instruments have been established, such approaches have typically not been translated to small animal imaging. We present a method for the generation and analysis of customized phantoms for small animal MRI systems that allows rapid and accurate system stability monitoring. METHODS: Computer-aided design software was used to produce a customized phantom using a rapid prototyping printer. Automated registration algorithms were used on three-dimensional images of the phantom to allow system stability to be easily monitored over time. RESULTS: The design of the custom phantom allowed reliable placement relative to the imaging coil. Automated registration showed superior ability to detect gradient changes reflected in the images than with manual measurements. Registering images acquired over time allowed monitoring of gradient drifts of less than one percent. CONCLUSION: A low cost, MRI compatible phantom was successfully designed using computer-aided design software and a three-dimensional printer. Registering phantom images acquired over time allows monitoring of gradient stability of the MRI system.
Authors: Jeffrey L Gunter; Matt A Bernstein; Brett J Borowski; Chadwick P Ward; Paula J Britson; Joel P Felmlee; Norbert Schuff; Michael Weiner; Clifford R Jack Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jonathan C Lau; Jason P Lerch; John G Sled; R Mark Henkelman; Alan C Evans; Barry J Bedell Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-05-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jason P Lerch; Jeffrey B Carroll; Shoshana Spring; Lisa N Bertram; Claudia Schwab; Michael R Hayden; R Mark Henkelman Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Matthew J Clarkson; Sébastien Ourselin; Casper Nielsen; Kelvin K Leung; Josephine Barnes; Jennifer L Whitwell; Jeffrey L Gunter; Derek L G Hill; Michael W Weiner; Clifford R Jack; Nick C Fox Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Claudia Plant; Stefan J Teipel; Annahita Oswald; Christian Böhm; Thomas Meindl; Janaina Mourao-Miranda; Arun W Bokde; Harald Hampel; Michael Ewers Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Joshua R Biller; Jana G Delfino; Michael A Boss; Mark D Does; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Mark A Griswold; Jeffrey L Gunter; R Scott Hinks; Stuart W Hoffman; Geena Kim; Riccardo Lattanzi; Xiaojuan Li; Luca Marinelli; Gregory J Metzger; Pratik Mukherjee; Robert J Nordstrom; Adele P Peskin; Elena Perez; Stephen E Russek; Berkman Sahiner; Natalie Serkova; Amita Shukla-Dave; Michael Steckner; Karl F Stupic; Lisa J Wilmes; Holden H Wu; Huiming Zhang; Edward F Jackson; Daniel C Sullivan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: James O'Callaghan; Jack Wells; Simon Richardson; Holly Holmes; Yichao Yu; Simon Walker-Samuel; Bernard Siow; Mark F Lythgoe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Xenios Milidonis; Ross J Lennen; Maurits A Jansen; Susanne Mueller; Philipp Boehm-Sturm; William M Holmes; Emily S Sena; Malcolm R Macleod; Ian Marshall Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kooresh I Shoghi; Cristian T Badea; Stephanie J Blocker; Thomas L Chenevert; Richard Laforest; Michael T Lewis; Gary D Luker; H Charles Manning; Daniel S Marcus; Yvonne M Mowery; Stephen Pickup; Ann Richmond; Brian D Ross; Anna E Vilgelm; Thomas E Yankeelov; Rong Zhou Journal: Tomography Date: 2020-09