PURPOSE: To describe an efficient procedure to empirically characterize gradient nonlinearity and correct for the corresponding apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) bias on a clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spatial nonlinearity scalars for individual gradient coils along superior and right directions were estimated via diffusion measurements of an isotropicic e-water phantom. Digital nonlinearity model from an independent scanner, described in the literature, was rescaled by system-specific scalars to approximate 3D bias correction maps. Correction efficacy was assessed by comparison to unbiased ADC values measured at isocenter. RESULTS: Empirically estimated nonlinearity scalars were confirmed by geometric distortion measurements of a regular grid phantom. The applied nonlinearity correction for arbitrarily oriented diffusion gradients reduced ADC bias from 20% down to 2% at clinically relevant offsets both for isotropic and anisotropic media. Identical performance was achieved using either corrected diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) intensities or corrected b-values for each direction in brain and ice-water. Direction-average trace image correction was adequate only for isotropic medium. CONCLUSION: Empiric scalar adjustment of an independent gradient nonlinearity model adequately described DWI bias for a clinical scanner. Observed efficiency of implemented ADC bias correction quantitatively agreed with previous theoretical predictions and numerical simulations. The described procedure provides an independent benchmark for nonlinearity bias correction of clinical MRI scanners.
PURPOSE: To describe an efficient procedure to empirically characterize gradient nonlinearity and correct for the corresponding apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) bias on a clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spatial nonlinearity scalars for individual gradient coils along superior and right directions were estimated via diffusion measurements of an isotropicic e-water phantom. Digital nonlinearity model from an independent scanner, described in the literature, was rescaled by system-specific scalars to approximate 3D bias correction maps. Correction efficacy was assessed by comparison to unbiased ADC values measured at isocenter. RESULTS: Empirically estimated nonlinearity scalars were confirmed by geometric distortion measurements of a regular grid phantom. The applied nonlinearity correction for arbitrarily oriented diffusion gradients reduced ADC bias from 20% down to 2% at clinically relevant offsets both for isotropic and anisotropic media. Identical performance was achieved using either corrected diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) intensities or corrected b-values for each direction in brain and ice-water. Direction-average trace image correction was adequate only for isotropic medium. CONCLUSION: Empiric scalar adjustment of an independent gradient nonlinearity model adequately described DWI bias for a clinical scanner. Observed efficiency of implemented ADC bias correction quantitatively agreed with previous theoretical predictions and numerical simulations. The described procedure provides an independent benchmark for nonlinearity bias correction of clinical MRI scanners.
Authors: Jorge Jovicich; Silvester Czanner; Douglas Greve; Elizabeth Haley; Andre van der Kouwe; Randy Gollub; David Kennedy; Franz Schmitt; Gregory Brown; James Macfall; Bruce Fischl; Anders Dale Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2005-11-21 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Ek T Tan; Luca Marinelli; Zachary W Slavens; Kevin F King; Christopher J Hardy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Thomas L Chenevert; Craig J Galbán; Marko K Ivancevic; Susan E Rohrer; Frank J Londy; Thomas C Kwee; Charles R Meyer; Timothy D Johnson; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: T L Chenevert; L D Stegman; J M Taylor; P L Robertson; H S Greenberg; A Rehemtulla; B D Ross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Baxter P Rogers; Justin Blaber; Allen T Newton; Colin B Hansen; E Brian Welch; Adam W Anderson; Jeffrey J Luci; Carlo Pierpaoli; Bennett A Landman Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2018-03
Authors: Baxter P Rogers; Justin Blaber; E Brian Welch; Zhaohua Ding; Adam W Anderson; Bennett A Landman Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2017-03-09
Authors: Dariya I Malyarenko; David Newitt; Lisa J Wilmes; Alina Tudorica; Karl G Helmer; Lori R Arlinghaus; Michael A Jacobs; Guido Jajamovich; Bachir Taouli; Thomas E Yankeelov; Wei Huang; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-05-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ashley T Tao; Yunhong Shu; Ek T Tan; Joshua D Trzasko; Shengzhen Tao; Robert D Reid; Paul T Weavers; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yuxi Pang; Dariya I Malyarenko; Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Enzo Barberi; Michael Cole; Axel Vom Endt; Johannes Peeters; Ek T Tan; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Phys Med Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 3.119
Authors: Kate Downey; Ayoma D Attygalle; Veronica A Morgan; Sharon L Giles; A MacDonald; M Davis; Thomas E J Ind; John H Shepherd; Nandita M deSouza Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Dariya I Malyarenko; Lisa J Wilmes; Lori R Arlinghaus; Michael A Jacobs; Wei Huang; Karl G Helmer; Bachir Taouli; Thomas E Yankeelov; David Newitt; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Tomography Date: 2016-12
Authors: Colin B Hansen; Baxter P Rogers; Kurt G Schilling; Vishwesh Nath; Justin A Blaber; Okan Irfanoglu; Alan Barnett; Carlo Pierpaoli; Adam W Anderson; Bennett A Landman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Amita Shukla-Dave; Nancy A Obuchowski; Thomas L Chenevert; Sachin Jambawalikar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Dariya Malyarenko; Wei Huang; Susan M Noworolski; Robert J Young; Mark S Shiroishi; Harrison Kim; Catherine Coolens; Hendrik Laue; Caroline Chung; Mark Rosen; Michael Boss; Edward F Jackson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.119