GOAL: This study aims at a systematic assessment of five computational models of a birdcage coil for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with respect to accuracy and computational cost. METHODS: The models were implemented using the same geometrical model and numerical algorithm, but different driving methods (i.e., coil "defeaturing"). The defeatured models were labeled as: specific (S2), generic (G32, G16), and hybrid (H16, [Formula: see text]). The accuracy of the models was evaluated using the "symmetric mean absolute percentage error" ("SMAPE"), by comparison with measurements in terms of frequency response, as well as electric ( ||→E||) and magnetic ( || →B ||) field magnitude. RESULTS: All the models computed the || →B || within 35% of the measurements, only the S2, G32, and H16 were able to accurately model the ||→E|| inside the phantom with a maximum SMAPE of 16%. Outside the phantom, only the S2 showed a SMAPE lower than 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that assessing the accuracy of || →B || based only on comparison along the central longitudinal line of the coil can be misleading. Generic or hybrid coils - when properly modeling the currents along the rings/rungs - were sufficient to accurately reproduce the fields inside a phantom while a specific model was needed to accurately model ||→E|| in the space between coil and phantom. SIGNIFICANCE: Computational modeling of birdcage body coils is extensively used in the evaluation of radiofrequency-induced heating during MRI. Experimental validation of numerical models is needed to determine if a model is an accurate representation of a physical coil.
GOAL: This study aims at a systematic assessment of five computational models of a birdcage coil for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with respect to accuracy and computational cost. METHODS: The models were implemented using the same geometrical model and numerical algorithm, but different driving methods (i.e., coil "defeaturing"). The defeatured models were labeled as: specific (S2), generic (G32, G16), and hybrid (H16, [Formula: see text]). The accuracy of the models was evaluated using the "symmetric mean absolute percentage error" ("SMAPE"), by comparison with measurements in terms of frequency response, as well as electric ( ||→E||) and magnetic ( || →B ||) field magnitude. RESULTS: All the models computed the || →B || within 35% of the measurements, only the S2, G32, and H16 were able to accurately model the ||→E|| inside the phantom with a maximum SMAPE of 16%. Outside the phantom, only the S2 showed a SMAPE lower than 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that assessing the accuracy of || →B || based only on comparison along the central longitudinal line of the coil can be misleading. Generic or hybrid coils - when properly modeling the currents along the rings/rungs - were sufficient to accurately reproduce the fields inside a phantom while a specific model was needed to accurately model ||→E|| in the space between coil and phantom. SIGNIFICANCE: Computational modeling of birdcage body coils is extensively used in the evaluation of radiofrequency-induced heating during MRI. Experimental validation of numerical models is needed to determine if a model is an accurate representation of a physical coil.
Authors: Cornelis A T Van den Berg; Lambertus W Bartels; Bob van den Bergen; Hugo Kroeze; Astrid A C de Leeuw; Jeroen B Van de Kamer; Jan J W Lagendijk Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2006-09-05 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Harald Kugel; Christoph Bremer; Marco Püschel; Roman Fischbach; Horst Lenzen; Bernd Tombach; Hugo Van Aken; Walter Heindel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-02-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Elena Lucano; Micaela Liberti; Tom Lloyd; Francesca Apollonio; Steve Wedan; Wolfgang Kainz; Leonardo M Angelone Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2016-08
Authors: Elena Lucano; Micaela Liberti; Tom Lloyd; Francesca Apollonio; Steve Wedan; Wolfgang Kainz; Leonardo M Angelone Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Bu S Park; Brent McCright; Leonardo M Angelone; Amir Razjouyan; Sunder S Rajan Journal: IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.006
Authors: Bu S Park; Amir Razjouyan; Leonardo M Angelone; Brent McCright; Sunder S Rajan Journal: IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.006
Authors: Laleh Golestanirad; Amir Ali Rahsepar; John E Kirsch; Kenichiro Suwa; Jeremy C Collins; Leonardo M Angelone; Boris Keil; Rod S Passman; Giorgio Bonmassar; Peter Serano; Peter Krenz; Jim DeLap; James C Carr; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kyoko Fujimoto; Leonardo M Angelone; Elena Lucano; Sunder S Rajan; Maria Ida Iacono Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.566