Subechhya Pradhan1, Susanne Bonekamp2, Joseph S Gillen3, Laura M Rowland4, S Andrea Wijtenburg4, Richard A E Edden2, Peter B Barker3. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: subechhya@jhmi.edu. 2. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; F.M. Kirby Research Centre, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) of three different regions of the human brain between 3 and 7 Tesla, using the same subjects and closely matched methodology at both field strengths. METHODS: A semi-LASER (sLASER) pulse sequence with TE 32ms was used to acquire metabolite spectrum along with the water reference at 3T and 7T using similar experimental parameters and hardware at both field strengths (n=4 per region and field). Spectra were analyzed in LCModel using a simulated basis set. RESULTS: Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at 7T was higher compared to 3T, and linewidths (in ppm) at both field strengths were comparable in ppm scale. Of the 13 metabolites reported in the paper, most metabolites were measured with higher precision at 7T in all three regions. CONCLUSION: The study confirms gains in SNR and measurement precision at 7T in all three representative brain regions using the sLASER pulse sequence coupled with a 32-channel phased-array head coil.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) of three different regions of the human brain between 3 and 7 Tesla, using the same subjects and closely matched methodology at both field strengths. METHODS: A semi-LASER (sLASER) pulse sequence with TE 32ms was used to acquire metabolite spectrum along with the water reference at 3T and 7T using similar experimental parameters and hardware at both field strengths (n=4 per region and field). Spectra were analyzed in LCModel using a simulated basis set. RESULTS: Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at 7T was higher compared to 3T, and linewidths (in ppm) at both field strengths were comparable in ppm scale. Of the 13 metabolites reported in the paper, most metabolites were measured with higher precision at 7T in all three regions. CONCLUSION: The study confirms gains in SNR and measurement precision at 7T in all three representative brain regions using the sLASER pulse sequence coupled with a 32-channel phased-array head coil.
Authors: Małgorzata Marjańska; Edward J Auerbach; Romain Valabrègue; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Gregor Adriany; Michael Garwood Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: William D Rooney; Glyn Johnson; Xin Li; Eric R Cohen; Seong-Gi Kim; Kamil Ugurbil; Charles S Springer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Georg Oeltzschner; S Andrea Wijtenburg; Mark Mikkelsen; Richard A E Edden; Peter B Barker; Jin Hui Joo; Jeannie-Marie S Leoutsakos; Laura M Rowland; Clifford I Workman; Gwenn S Smith Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Allison S Brandt; Paul G Unschuld; Subechhya Pradhan; Issel Anne L Lim; Gregory Churchill; Ashley D Harris; Jun Hua; Peter B Barker; Christopher A Ross; Peter C M van Zijl; Richard A E Edden; Russell L Margolis Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2016-02-28 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: S Andrea Wijtenburg; Laura M Rowland; Georg Oeltzschner; Peter B Barker; Clifford I Workman; Gwenn S Smith Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Michal Považan; Mark Mikkelsen; Adam Berrington; Pallab K Bhattacharyya; Maiken K Brix; Pieter F Buur; Kim M Cecil; Kimberly L Chan; David Y T Chen; Alexander R Craven; Koen Cuypers; Michael Dacko; Niall W Duncan; Ulrike Dydak; David A Edmondson; Gabriele Ende; Lars Ersland; Megan A Forbes; Fei Gao; Ian Greenhouse; Ashley D Harris; Naying He; Stefanie Heba; Nigel Hoggard; Tun-Wei Hsu; Jacobus F A Jansen; Alayar Kangarlu; Thomas Lange; R Marc Lebel; Yan Li; Chien-Yuan E Lin; Jy-Kang Liou; Jiing-Feng Lirng; Feng Liu; Joanna R Long; Ruoyun Ma; Celine Maes; Marta Moreno-Ortega; Scott O Murray; Sean Noah; Ralph Noeske; Michael D Noseworthy; Georg Oeltzschner; Eric C Porges; James J Prisciandaro; Nicolaas A J Puts; Timothy P L Roberts; Markus Sack; Napapon Sailasuta; Muhammad G Saleh; Michael-Paul Schallmo; Nicholas Simard; Diederick Stoffers; Stephan P Swinnen; Martin Tegenthoff; Peter Truong; Guangbin Wang; Iain D Wilkinson; Hans-Jörg Wittsack; Adam J Woods; Hongmin Xu; Fuhua Yan; Chencheng Zhang; Vadim Zipunnikov; Helge J Zöllner; Richard A E Edden; Peter B Barker Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Melissa Terpstra; Ian Cheong; Tianmeng Lyu; Dinesh K Deelchand; Uzay E Emir; Petr Bednařík; Lynn E Eberly; Gülin Öz Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tomohisa Okada; Hideto Kuribayashi; Lana G Kaiser; Yuta Urushibata; Nouha Salibi; Ravi Teja Seethamraju; Sinyeob Ahn; Dinh Ha Duy Thuy; Koji Fujimoto; Tadashi Isa Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-01
Authors: Gonzalo M Quiñones; Ahmad Mayeli; Victor E Yushmanov; Hoby P Hetherington; Fabio Ferrarelli Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: S Andrea Wijtenburg; Min Wang; Stephanie A Korenic; Shuo Chen; Peter B Barker; Laura M Rowland Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 4.157