Literature DB >> 25652507

Suitability of poroelastic and viscoelastic mechanical models for high and low frequency MR elastography.

M D J McGarry1, C L Johnson2, B P Sutton3, J G Georgiadis4, E E W Van Houten5, A J Pattison1, J B Weaver6, K D Paulsen7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Descriptions of the structure of brain tissue as a porous cellular matrix support application of a poroelastic (PE) mechanical model which includes both solid and fluid phases. However, the majority of brain magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) studies use a single phase viscoelastic (VE) model to describe brain tissue behavior, in part due to availability of relatively simple direct inversion strategies for mechanical property estimation. A notable exception is low frequency intrinsic actuation MRE, where PE mechanical properties are imaged with a nonlinear inversion algorithm.
METHODS: This paper investigates the effect of model choice at each end of the spectrum of in vivo human brain actuation frequencies. Repeat MRE examinations of the brains of healthy volunteers were used to compare image quality and repeatability for each inversion model for both 50 Hz externally produced motion and ≈1 Hz intrinsic motions. Additionally, realistic simulated MRE data were generated with both VE and PE finite element solvers to investigate the effect of inappropriate model choice for ideal VE and PE materials.
RESULTS: In vivo, MRE data revealed that VE inversions appear more representative of anatomical structure and quantitatively repeatable for 50 Hz induced motions, whereas PE inversion produces better results at 1 Hz. Reasonable VE approximations of PE materials can be derived by equating the equivalent wave velocities for the two models, provided that the timescale of fluid equilibration is not similar to the period of actuation. An approximation of the equilibration time for human brain reveals that this condition is violated at 1 Hz but not at 50 Hz. Additionally, simulation experiments when using the "wrong" model for the inversion demonstrated reasonable shear modulus reconstructions at 50 Hz, whereas cross-model inversions at 1 Hz were poor quality. Attenuation parameters were sensitive to changes in the forward model at both frequencies, however, no spatial information was recovered because the mechanisms of VE and PE attenuation are different.
CONCLUSIONS: VE inversions are simpler with fewer unknown properties and may be sufficient to capture the mechanical behavior of PE brain tissue at higher actuation frequencies. However, accurate modeling of the fluid phase is required to produce useful mechanical property images at the lower frequencies of intrinsic brain motions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25652507      PMCID: PMC4312344          DOI: 10.1118/1.4905048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  44 in total

1.  A three-parameter mechanical property reconstruction method for MR-based elastic property imaging.

Authors:  Elijah E W Van Houten; Marvin M Doyley; Francis E Kennedy; Keith D Paulsen; John B Weaver
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  Unconfined compression of white matter.

Authors:  Shaokoon Cheng; Lynne E Bilston
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2005-12-22       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Noninvasive assessment of the rheological behavior of human organs using multifrequency MR elastography: a study of brain and liver viscoelasticity.

Authors:  Dieter Klatt; Uwe Hamhaber; Patrick Asbach; Jürgen Braun; Ingolf Sack
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  MR elastography of breast lesions: understanding the solid/liquid duality can improve the specificity of contrast-enhanced MR mammography.

Authors:  Ralph Sinkus; Katja Siegmann; Tanja Xydeas; Mickael Tanter; Claus Claussen; Mathias Fink
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.668

5.  MR elastography of the human heart: noninvasive assessment of myocardial elasticity changes by shear wave amplitude variations.

Authors:  Ingolf Sack; Jens Rump; Thomas Elgeti; Abbas Samani; Jürgen Braun
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 6.  Diffusion in brain extracellular space.

Authors:  Eva Syková; Charles Nicholson
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 37.312

7.  Modeling of soft poroelastic tissue in time-harmonic MR elastography.

Authors:  Phillip R Perriñez; Francis E Kennedy; Elijah E W Van Houten; John B Weaver; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 4.538

8.  Deformation of the human brain induced by mild angular head acceleration.

Authors:  Arash A Sabet; Eftychios Christoforou; Benjamin Zatlin; Guy M Genin; Philip V Bayly
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 9.  Finite-element models of the human head and their applications in forensic practice.

Authors:  Jean-Sébastien Raul; Caroline Deck; Rémy Willinger; Bertrand Ludes
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2008-05-27       Impact factor: 2.686

10.  Investigation of traumatic brain injuries using the next generation of simulated injury monitor (SIMon) finite element head model.

Authors:  Erik G Takhounts; Stephen A Ridella; Vikas Hasija; Rabih E Tannous; J Quinn Campbell; Dan Malone; Kerry Danelson; Joel Stitzel; Steve Rowson; Stefan Duma
Journal:  Stapp Car Crash J       Date:  2008-11
View more
  26 in total

1.  Cerebral multifrequency MR elastography by remote excitation of intracranial shear waves.

Authors:  Andreas Fehlner; Sebastian Papazoglou; Matthew D McGarry; Keith D Paulsen; Jing Guo; Kaspar-Josche Streitberger; Sebastian Hirsch; Jürgen Braun; Ingolf Sack
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 4.044

2.  Brain palpation from physiological vibrations using MRI.

Authors:  Ali Zorgani; Rémi Souchon; Au-Hoang Dinh; Jean-Yves Chapelon; Jean-Michel Ménager; Samir Lounis; Olivier Rouvière; Stefan Catheline
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Cardiac-gated steady-state multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography of the brain: Effect of cerebral arterial pulsation on brain viscoelasticity.

Authors:  Felix Schrank; Carsten Warmuth; Heiko Tzschätzsch; Bernhard Kreft; Sebastian Hirsch; Jürgen Braun; Thomas Elgeti; Ingolf Sack
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 6.200

4.  Perfusion alters stiffness of deep gray matter.

Authors:  Stefan Hetzer; Patric Birr; Andreas Fehlner; Sebastian Hirsch; Florian Dittmann; Eric Barnhill; Jürgen Braun; Ingolf Sack
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 6.200

5.  Viscoelasticity of subcortical gray matter structures.

Authors:  Curtis L Johnson; Hillary Schwarb; Matthew D J McGarry; Aaron T Anderson; Graham R Huesmann; Bradley P Sutton; Neal J Cohen
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Gradient-Based Optimization for Poroelastic and Viscoelastic MR Elastography.

Authors:  Likun Tan; Matthew D J McGarry; Elijah E W Van Houten; Ming Ji; Ligin Solamen; John B Weaver; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 7.  Advances in Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver.

Authors:  Jiahui Li; Sudhakar Kundapur Venkatesh; Meng Yin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2020-06-06       Impact factor: 2.266

8.  Statistical Characterization of Human Brain Deformation During Mild Angular Acceleration Measured In Vivo by Tagged Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Deva D Chan; Andrew K Knutsen; Yuan-Chiao Lu; Sarah H Yang; Elizabeth Magrath; Wen-Tung Wang; Philip V Bayly; John A Butman; Dzung L Pham
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 2.097

9.  Mechanical properties of porcine brain tissue in vivo and ex vivo estimated by MR elastography.

Authors:  Charlotte A Guertler; Ruth J Okamoto; John L Schmidt; Andrew A Badachhape; Curtis L Johnson; Philip V Bayly
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 10.  Stiffness and Beyond: What MR Elastography Can Tell Us About Brain Structure and Function Under Physiologic and Pathologic Conditions.

Authors:  Ziying Yin; Anthony J Romano; Armando Manduca; Richard L Ehman; John Huston
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.