P-Y Lin1, T-C Chao2, M-L Wu3. 1. From the Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering (P.-Y.L., T.-C.C., M.-L.W.). 2. From the Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering (P.-Y.L., T.-C.C., M.-L.W.) Institute of Medical Informatics (T.-C.C., M.-L.W.), National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 3. From the Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering (P.-Y.L., T.-C.C., M.-L.W.) Institute of Medical Informatics (T.-C.C., M.-L.W.), National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. minglong.wu@csie.ncku.edu.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantitative susceptibility mapping of the human brain has demonstrated strong potential in examining iron deposition, which may help in investigating possible brain pathology. This study assesses the reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping across different imaging sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, the susceptibility values of 5 regions of interest in the human brain were measured on 9 healthy subjects following calibration by using phantom experiments. Each of the subjects was imaged 5 times on 1 scanner with the same procedure repeated on 3 different 3T systems so that both within-site and cross-site quantitative susceptibility mapping precision levels could be assessed. Two quantitative susceptibility mapping algorithms, similar in principle, one by using iterative regularization (iterative quantitative susceptibility mapping) and the other with analytic optimal solutions (deterministic quantitative susceptibility mapping), were implemented, and their performances were compared. RESULTS: Results show that while deterministic quantitative susceptibility mapping had nearly 700 times faster computation speed, residual streaking artifacts seem to be more prominent compared with iterative quantitative susceptibility mapping. With quantitative susceptibility mapping, the putamen, globus pallidus, and caudate nucleus showed smaller imprecision on the order of 0.005 ppm, whereas the red nucleus and substantia nigra, closer to the skull base, had a somewhat larger imprecision of approximately 0.01 ppm. Cross-site errors were not significantly larger than within-site errors. Possible sources of estimation errors are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping in the human brain in vivo is regionally dependent, and the precision levels achieved with quantitative susceptibility mapping should allow longitudinal and multisite studies such as aging-related changes in brain tissue magnetic susceptibility.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantitative susceptibility mapping of the human brain has demonstrated strong potential in examining iron deposition, which may help in investigating possible brain pathology. This study assesses the reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping across different imaging sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, the susceptibility values of 5 regions of interest in the human brain were measured on 9 healthy subjects following calibration by using phantom experiments. Each of the subjects was imaged 5 times on 1 scanner with the same procedure repeated on 3 different 3T systems so that both within-site and cross-site quantitative susceptibility mapping precision levels could be assessed. Two quantitative susceptibility mapping algorithms, similar in principle, one by using iterative regularization (iterative quantitative susceptibility mapping) and the other with analytic optimal solutions (deterministic quantitative susceptibility mapping), were implemented, and their performances were compared. RESULTS: Results show that while deterministic quantitative susceptibility mapping had nearly 700 times faster computation speed, residual streaking artifacts seem to be more prominent compared with iterative quantitative susceptibility mapping. With quantitative susceptibility mapping, the putamen, globus pallidus, and caudate nucleus showed smaller imprecision on the order of 0.005 ppm, whereas the red nucleus and substantia nigra, closer to the skull base, had a somewhat larger imprecision of approximately 0.01 ppm. Cross-site errors were not significantly larger than within-site errors. Possible sources of estimation errors are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping in the human brain in vivo is regionally dependent, and the precision levels achieved with quantitative susceptibility mapping should allow longitudinal and multisite studies such as aging-related changes in brain tissue magnetic susceptibility.
Authors: Andreas Deistung; Andreas Schäfer; Ferdinand Schweser; Uta Biedermann; Robert Turner; Jürgen R Reichenbach Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Tian Liu; Ildar Khalidov; Ludovic de Rochefort; Pascal Spincemaille; Jing Liu; A John Tsiouris; Yi Wang Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Issel Anne L Lim; Andreia V Faria; Xu Li; Johnny T C Hsu; Raag D Airan; Susumu Mori; Peter C M van Zijl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kofi Deh; Thanh D Nguyen; Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Martin R Prince; Pascal Spincemaille; Susan Gauthier; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Yan Zhang; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yi Wang; Pascal Spincemaille; Zhe Liu; Alexey Dimov; Kofi Deh; Jianqi Li; Yan Zhang; Yihao Yao; Kelly M Gillen; Alan H Wilman; Ajay Gupta; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Gloria Chia-Yi Chiang; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Lawrence Tanenbaum; Weiwei Chen; Wenzhen Zhu; Shixin Chang; Min Lou; Brian H Kopell; Michael G Kaplitt; David Devos; Toshinori Hirai; Xuemei Huang; Yukunori Korogi; Alexander Shtilbans; Geon-Ho Jahng; Daniel Pelletier; Susan A Gauthier; David Pitt; Ashley I Bush; Gary M Brittenham; Martin R Prince Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kofi Deh; Keigo Kawaji; Marjolein Bulk; Louise Van Der Weerd; Emelie Lind; Pascal Spincemaille; Kelly McCabe Gillen; Johan Van Auderkerke; Yi Wang; Thanh D Nguyen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 4.668