Stephen F Cauley1,2, Kawin Setsompop1,2, Dan Ma3, Yun Jiang3, Huihui Ye1,4, Elfar Adalsteinsson1,5, Mark A Griswold3,6, Lawrence L Wald1,2,5. 1. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 5. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science; Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Institute of Medical Engineering and Science, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: MR fingerprinting (MRF) is a technique for quantitative tissue mapping using pseudorandom measurements. To estimate tissue properties such as T1 , T2 , proton density, and B0 , the rapidly acquired data are compared against a large dictionary of Bloch simulations. This matching process can be a very computationally demanding portion of MRF reconstruction. THEORY AND METHODS: We introduce a fast group matching algorithm (GRM) that exploits inherent correlation within MRF dictionaries to create highly clustered groupings of the elements. During matching, a group specific signature is first used to remove poor matching possibilities. Group principal component analysis (PCA) is used to evaluate all remaining tissue types. In vivo 3 Tesla brain data were used to validate the accuracy of our approach. RESULTS: For a trueFISP sequence with over 196,000 dictionary elements, 1000 MRF samples, and image matrix of 128 × 128, GRM was able to map MR parameters within 2s using standard vendor computational resources. This is an order of magnitude faster than global PCA and nearly two orders of magnitude faster than direct matching, with comparable accuracy (1-2% relative error). CONCLUSION: The proposed GRM method is a highly efficient model reduction technique for MRF matching and should enable clinically relevant reconstruction accuracy and time on standard vendor computational resources.
PURPOSE: MR fingerprinting (MRF) is a technique for quantitative tissue mapping using pseudorandom measurements. To estimate tissue properties such as T1 , T2 , proton density, and B0 , the rapidly acquired data are compared against a large dictionary of Bloch simulations. This matching process can be a very computationally demanding portion of MRF reconstruction. THEORY AND METHODS: We introduce a fast group matching algorithm (GRM) that exploits inherent correlation within MRF dictionaries to create highly clustered groupings of the elements. During matching, a group specific signature is first used to remove poor matching possibilities. Group principal component analysis (PCA) is used to evaluate all remaining tissue types. In vivo 3 Tesla brain data were used to validate the accuracy of our approach. RESULTS: For a trueFISP sequence with over 196,000 dictionary elements, 1000 MRF samples, and image matrix of 128 × 128, GRM was able to map MR parameters within 2s using standard vendor computational resources. This is an order of magnitude faster than global PCA and nearly two orders of magnitude faster than direct matching, with comparable accuracy (1-2% relative error). CONCLUSION: The proposed GRM method is a highly efficient model reduction technique for MRF matching and should enable clinically relevant reconstruction accuracy and time on standard vendor computational resources.
Authors: Peter Schmitt; Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Markus Kotas; Vikas Gulani; Michael Flentje; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Philipp Ehses; Nicole Seiberlich; Dan Ma; Felix A Breuer; Peter M Jakob; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: David S Smith; Xia Li; James V Gambrell; Lori R Arlinghaus; C Chad Quarles; Thomas E Yankeelov; E Brian Welch Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: H B Larsson; J Frederiksen; J Petersen; A Nordenbo; I Zeeberg; O Henriksen; J Olesen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Dan Ma; Vikas Gulani; Nicole Seiberlich; Kecheng Liu; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Jeffrey L Duerk; Mark A Griswold Journal: Nature Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jakob Assländer; Martijn A Cloos; Florian Knoll; Daniel K Sodickson; Jürgen Hennig; Riccardo Lattanzi Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-03-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Charlie Yi Wang; Simone Coppo; Bhairav Bipin Mehta; Nicole Seiberlich; Xin Yu; Mark Alan Griswold Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ouri Cohen; Shuning Huang; Michael T McMahon; Matthew S Rosen; Christian T Farrar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-13 Impact factor: 4.668