Brian Hansen1, Torben E Lund1, Ryan Sangill1, Ebbe Stubbe2, Jürgen Finsterbusch3, Sune Nørhøj Jespersen4,5. 1. Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience (CFIN) and MINDLab, Clinical Institute, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 2. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Institut für Systemische Neurowissenschaften, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. 4. Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience (CFIN) and MINDLab, Clinical Institute, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. sune@cfin.au.dk. 5. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. sune@cfin.au.dk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The clinical use of kurtosis imaging is impeded by long acquisitions and postprocessing. Recently, estimation of mean kurtosis tensor W¯ and mean diffusivity ( D¯) was made possible from 13 distinct diffusion weighted MRI acquisitions (the 1-3-9 protocol) with simple postprocessing. Here, we analyze the effects of noise and nonideal diffusion encoding, and propose a new correction strategy. We also present a 1-9-9 protocol with increased robustness to experimental imperfections and minimal additional scan time. This refinement does not affect computation time and also provides a fast estimate of fractional anisotropy (FA). THEORY AND METHODS: 1-3-9/1-9-9 data are acquired in rat and human brains, and estimates of D¯, FA, W¯ from human brains are compared with traditional estimates from an extensive diffusion kurtosis imaging data set. Simulations are used to evaluate the influence of noise and diffusion encodings deviating from the scheme, and the performance of the correction strategy. Optimal b-values are determined from simulations and data. RESULTS: Accuracy and precision in D¯ and W¯ are comparable to nonlinear least squares estimation, and is improved with the 1-9-9 protocol. The compensation strategy vastly improves parameter estimation in nonideal data. CONCLUSION: The framework offers a robust and compact method for estimating several diffusion metrics. The protocol is easily implemented. Magn Reson Med 76:1455-1468, 2016.
PURPOSE: The clinical use of kurtosis imaging is impeded by long acquisitions and postprocessing. Recently, estimation of mean kurtosis tensorW¯ and mean diffusivity ( D¯) was made possible from 13 distinct diffusion weighted MRI acquisitions (the 1-3-9 protocol) with simple postprocessing. Here, we analyze the effects of noise and nonideal diffusion encoding, and propose a new correction strategy. We also present a 1-9-9 protocol with increased robustness to experimental imperfections and minimal additional scan time. This refinement does not affect computation time and also provides a fast estimate of fractional anisotropy (FA). THEORY AND METHODS: 1-3-9/1-9-9 data are acquired in rat and human brains, and estimates of D¯, FA, W¯ from human brains are compared with traditional estimates from an extensive diffusion kurtosis imaging data set. Simulations are used to evaluate the influence of noise and diffusion encodings deviating from the scheme, and the performance of the correction strategy. Optimal b-values are determined from simulations and data. RESULTS: Accuracy and precision in D¯ and W¯ are comparable to nonlinear least squares estimation, and is improved with the 1-9-9 protocol. The compensation strategy vastly improves parameter estimation in nonideal data. CONCLUSION: The framework offers a robust and compact method for estimating several diffusion metrics. The protocol is easily implemented. Magn Reson Med 76:1455-1468, 2016.
Authors: S Umesh Rudrapatna; Tadeusz Wieloch; Kerstin Beirup; Karsten Ruscher; Wouter Mol; Pavel Yanev; Alexander Leemans; Annette van der Toorn; Rick M Dijkhuizen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Edward S Hui; Els Fieremans; Jens H Jensen; Ali Tabesh; Wuwei Feng; Leonardo Bonilha; Maria V Spampinato; Robert Adams; Joseph A Helpern Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: E Raz; M Bester; E E Sigmund; A Tabesh; J S Babb; H Jaggi; J Helpern; R J Mitnick; M Inglese Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Peter Kochunov; Erin W Dickie; Joseph D Viviano; Jessica Turner; Peter B Kingsley; Neda Jahanshad; Paul M Thompson; Meghann C Ryan; Els Fieremans; Dmitry Novikov; Jelle Veraart; Elliot L Hong; Anil K Malhotra; Robert W Buchanan; Sofia Chavez; Aristotle N Voineskos Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: B F Kjølby; A R Khan; A Chuhutin; L Pedersen; J B Jensen; S Jakobsen; D Zeidler; R Sangill; J R Nyengaard; S N Jespersen; B Hansen Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Brian Hansen; Ahmad R Khan; Noam Shemesh; Torben E Lund; Ryan Sangill; Simon F Eskildsen; Leif Østergaard; Sune N Jespersen Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 4.044