Eric Barnhill1, Paul Kennedy1, Curtis L Johnson2, Marius Mada3, Neil Roberts1. 1. Clinical Research Imaging Centre, School of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 2. Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA. 3. Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Department of Clinical Neurociences, The University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Phase amplitude is a source of signal in magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) experiments but its exploitation in experimental design has been limited due to the challenges of phase wrap. This study addressed this aspect of MRE through new developments in algorithms, heuristic strategy, and user interface. METHODS: A test dataset with systematic variation of three parameters-nested wrap, gradient, and noise level-was developed to choose phase-unwrapping algorithms and to analyze their performance. A new application, PhaseTools, was developed that implemented three phase-unwrapping algorithms that adhere to a "real-time" criterion of less than 3 min for a four-dimensional MRE acquisition. Two of the algorithms extend previously published algorithms and one was newly developed. The algorithms were then applied to five datasets from MRE, two typical cases and three edge cases that were particularly challenging in one of the three parameters. RESULTS: The performance of the PhaseTools algorithms on the test dataset was comparable to two widely cited algorithms that take hours or days to complete. Guidelines for the optimal use of each algorithm are established. CONCLUSION: PhaseTools enables the substantial increase of signal-to-noise in MRE experiments at negligible additional computational cost. PhaseTools is freely released with this study, making robust real-time phase unwrapping available to any group using phase-based imaging.
PURPOSE: Phase amplitude is a source of signal in magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) experiments but its exploitation in experimental design has been limited due to the challenges of phase wrap. This study addressed this aspect of MRE through new developments in algorithms, heuristic strategy, and user interface. METHODS: A test dataset with systematic variation of three parameters-nested wrap, gradient, and noise level-was developed to choose phase-unwrapping algorithms and to analyze their performance. A new application, PhaseTools, was developed that implemented three phase-unwrapping algorithms that adhere to a "real-time" criterion of less than 3 min for a four-dimensional MRE acquisition. Two of the algorithms extend previously published algorithms and one was newly developed. The algorithms were then applied to five datasets from MRE, two typical cases and three edge cases that were particularly challenging in one of the three parameters. RESULTS: The performance of the PhaseTools algorithms on the test dataset was comparable to two widely cited algorithms that take hours or days to complete. Guidelines for the optimal use of each algorithm are established. CONCLUSION: PhaseTools enables the substantial increase of signal-to-noise in MRE experiments at negligible additional computational cost. PhaseTools is freely released with this study, making robust real-time phase unwrapping available to any group using phase-based imaging.
Authors: Andrew A Badachhape; Ruth J Okamoto; Ramona S Durham; Brent D Efron; Sam J Nadell; Curtis L Johnson; Philip V Bayly Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Ziying Yin; Yi Sui; Joshua D Trzasko; Phillip J Rossman; Armando Manduca; Richard L Ehman; John Huston Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Paul Kennedy; Lewis J Macgregor; Eric Barnhill; Curtis L Johnson; Michael Perrins; Angus Hunter; Colin Brown; Edwin J R van Beek; Neil Roberts Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Simon Daniel Robinson; Kristian Bredies; Diana Khabipova; Barbara Dymerska; José P Marques; Ferdinand Schweser Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Paul Kennedy; Eric Barnhill; Calum Gray; Colin Brown; Edwin J R van Beek; Neil Roberts; Carolyn Anne Greig Journal: Geroscience Date: 2019-12-21 Impact factor: 7.713