Valentin H Prevost1, Olivier M Girard1, Gopal Varma2, David C Alsop2, Guillaume Duhamel3. 1. Centre de Résonance Magnétique Biologique et Médicale, CRMBM-CEMEREM, UMR 7339, CNRS, Faculté de Médecine, Aix-Marseille Université (AMU), 27 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13005, Marseille, France. 2. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Centre de Résonance Magnétique Biologique et Médicale, CRMBM-CEMEREM, UMR 7339, CNRS, Faculté de Médecine, Aix-Marseille Université (AMU), 27 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13005, Marseille, France. guillaume.duhamel@univ-amu.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The recently reported inhomogeneous magnetization transfer technique (ihMT) has been proposed for specific imaging of inhomogeneously broadened lines, and has shown great promise for characterizing myelinated tissues. The ihMT contrast is obtained by subtracting magnetization transfer images obtained with simultaneous saturation at positive and negative frequency offsets (dual frequency saturation experiment, MT (+/-)) from those obtained with single frequency saturation (MT (+)) at the same total power. Hence, ihMT may be biased by MT-asymmetry, especially at ultra-high magnetic field. Use of the average of single positive and negative frequency offset saturation MT images, i.e., (MT (+)+MT (-)) has been proposed to correct the ihMT signal from MT-asymmetry signal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The efficiency of this correction method was experimentally assessed in this study, performed at 11.75 T on mice. Quantitative corrected ihMT and MT-asymmetry ratios (ihMTR and MTRasym) were measured in mouse brain structures for several MT-asymmetry magnitudes and different saturation parameter sets. RESULTS: Our results indicated a "safe" range of magnitudes (/MTRasym/<4 %) for which MT-asymmetry signal did not bias the corrected ihMT signal. Moreover, experimental evidence of the different natures of both MT-asymmetry and inhomogeneous MT contrasts were provided. In particular, non-zero ihMT ratios were obtained at zero MTRasym values. CONCLUSION: MTRasym is not a confounding factor for ihMT quantification, even at ultra-high field, as long as MTRasym is restricted to ±4 %.
OBJECTIVES: The recently reported inhomogeneous magnetization transfer technique (ihMT) has been proposed for specific imaging of inhomogeneously broadened lines, and has shown great promise for characterizing myelinated tissues. The ihMT contrast is obtained by subtracting magnetization transfer images obtained with simultaneous saturation at positive and negative frequency offsets (dual frequency saturation experiment, MT (+/-)) from those obtained with single frequency saturation (MT (+)) at the same total power. Hence, ihMT may be biased by MT-asymmetry, especially at ultra-high magnetic field. Use of the average of single positive and negative frequency offset saturation MT images, i.e., (MT (+)+MT (-)) has been proposed to correct the ihMT signal from MT-asymmetry signal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The efficiency of this correction method was experimentally assessed in this study, performed at 11.75 T on mice. Quantitative corrected ihMT and MT-asymmetry ratios (ihMTR and MTRasym) were measured in mouse brain structures for several MT-asymmetry magnitudes and different saturation parameter sets. RESULTS: Our results indicated a "safe" range of magnitudes (/MTRasym/<4 %) for which MT-asymmetry signal did not bias the corrected ihMT signal. Moreover, experimental evidence of the different natures of both MT-asymmetry and inhomogeneous MT contrasts were provided. In particular, non-zero ihMT ratios were obtained at zero MTRasym values. CONCLUSION: MTRasym is not a confounding factor for ihMT quantification, even at ultra-high field, as long as MTRasym is restricted to ±4 %.
Authors: Jun Hua; Craig K Jones; Jaishri Blakeley; Seth A Smith; Peter C M van Zijl; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Olivier M Girard; Valentin H Prevost; Gopal Varma; Patrick J Cozzone; David C Alsop; Guillaume Duhamel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Zhongliang Zu; Vaibhav A Janve; Junzhong Xu; Mark D Does; John C Gore; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hunter R Underhill; Robert C Rostomily; Andrei M Mikheev; Chun Yuan; Vasily L Yarnykh Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: G R Davies; A Ramani; C M Dalton; D J Tozer; C A M Wheeler-Kingshott; G J Barker; A J Thompson; D H Miller; P S Tofts Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Gopal Varma; Fanny Munsch; Brian Burns; Guillaume Duhamel; Olivier M Girard; Arnaud Guidon; R Marc Lebel; David C Alsop Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ece Ercan; Gopal Varma; Ivan E Dimitrov; Yin Xi; Marco C Pinho; Fang F Yu; Shu Zhang; Xinzeng Wang; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Robert E Lenkinski; David C Alsop; Elena Vinogradov Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 4.668