Richard A E Edden1,2, Georg Oeltzschner1,2, Ashley D Harris1,2,3,4,5, Nicolaas A J Puts1,2, Kimberly L Chan1,2,6, Vincent O Boer7, Michael Schär1, Peter B Barker1,2. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. F.M. Kirby Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. CAIR Program, Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, AB, Canada. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, AB, Canada. 5. Hotchkiss Brain Institute and Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, AB, Canada. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 7. Hvidovre Hospital, Danish Research Center for Magnetic Resonance, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of B0 field offsets and drift on macromolecule (MM)-suppressed GABA-editing experiments, and to implement and test a prospective correction scheme. "Symmetric" editing schemes are proposed to suppress unwanted coedited MM signals in GABA editing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full density-matrix simulations of both conventional (nonsymmetric) and symmetric MM-suppressed editing schemes were performed for the GABA spin system to evaluate their offset-dependence. Phantom and in vivo (15 subjects at 3T) GABA-edited experiments with symmetrical suppression of MM signals were performed to quantify the effects of field offsets on the total GABA+MM signal (designated GABA+). A prospective frequency correction method based on interleaved water referencing (IWR) acquisitions was implemented and its experimental performance evaluated during positive and negative drift. RESULTS: Simulations show that the signal from MM-suppressed symmetrical editing schemes is an order of magnitude more susceptible to field offsets than the signal from nonsymmetric editing schemes. The MM-suppressed GABA signal changes by 8.6% per Hz for small field offsets. IWR significantly reduces variance in the field offset and measured GABA levels (both P < 0.001 by F-tests), maintaining symmetric suppression of MM signal. CONCLUSION: Symmetrical editing schemes substantially increase the dependence of measurements on B0 field offsets, which can arise due to patient movement and/or scanner instability. It is recommended that symmetrical editing should be used in combination with effective B0 stabilization, such as that provided by IWR. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1474-1482.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of B0 field offsets and drift on macromolecule (MM)-suppressed GABA-editing experiments, and to implement and test a prospective correction scheme. "Symmetric" editing schemes are proposed to suppress unwanted coedited MM signals in GABA editing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full density-matrix simulations of both conventional (nonsymmetric) and symmetric MM-suppressed editing schemes were performed for the GABA spin system to evaluate their offset-dependence. Phantom and in vivo (15 subjects at 3T) GABA-edited experiments with symmetrical suppression of MM signals were performed to quantify the effects of field offsets on the total GABA+MM signal (designated GABA+). A prospective frequency correction method based on interleaved water referencing (IWR) acquisitions was implemented and its experimental performance evaluated during positive and negative drift. RESULTS: Simulations show that the signal from MM-suppressed symmetrical editing schemes is an order of magnitude more susceptible to field offsets than the signal from nonsymmetric editing schemes. The MM-suppressed GABA signal changes by 8.6% per Hz for small field offsets. IWR significantly reduces variance in the field offset and measured GABA levels (both P < 0.001 by F-tests), maintaining symmetric suppression of MM signal. CONCLUSION: Symmetrical editing schemes substantially increase the dependence of measurements on B0 field offsets, which can arise due to patient movement and/or scanner instability. It is recommended that symmetrical editing should be used in combination with effective B0 stabilization, such as that provided by IWR. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1474-1482.
Authors: Bertram J Wilm; Yolanda Duerst; Benjamin E Dietrich; Michael Wyss; S Johanna Vannesjo; Thomas Schmid; David O Brunner; Christoph Barmet; Klaas P Pruessmann Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: J P Wijnen; J Haarsma; V O Boer; P R Luijten; S van der Stigchel; S F W Neggers; D W J Klomp Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: C John Evans; Nicolaas A J Puts; Siân E Robson; Frederic Boy; David J McGonigle; Petroc Sumner; Krish D Singh; Richard A E Edden Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mark Mikkelsen; Peter B Barker; 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; 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; Ruoyun Ma; Celine Maes; Marta Moreno-Ortega; Scott O Murray; Sean Noah; Ralph Noeske; Michael D Noseworthy; Georg Oeltzschner; James J Prisciandaro; Nicolaas A J Puts; Timothy P L Roberts; Markus Sack; Napapon Sailasuta; Muhammad G Saleh; Michael-Paul Schallmo; Nicholas Simard; Stephan P Swinnen; Martin Tegenthoff; Peter Truong; Guangbin Wang; Iain D Wilkinson; Hans-Jörg Wittsack; Hongmin Xu; Fuhua Yan; Chencheng Zhang; Vadim Zipunnikov; Helge J Zöllner; Richard A E Edden Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Fei Gao; Xuntao Yin; Richard A E Edden; Alan C Evans; Junhai Xu; Guanmei Cao; Honghao Li; Muwei Li; Bin Zhao; Jian Wang; Guangbin Wang Journal: Hippocampus Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.899
Authors: Lize Hermans; Inge Leunissen; Lisa Pauwels; Koen Cuypers; Ronald Peeters; Nicolaas A J Puts; Richard A E Edden; Stephan P Swinnen Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Xi Chen; Xiaoying Fan; Yuzheng Hu; Chun Zuo; Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli; Daphne Holt; Qiyong Gong; Yihong Yang; Diego A Pizzagalli; Fei Du; Dost Ongur Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Muhammad G Saleh; Mark Mikkelsen; Georg Oeltzschner; Kimberly L Chan; Adam Berrington; Peter B Barker; Richard A E Edden Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Mark Mikkelsen; Muhammad G Saleh; Jamie Near; Kimberly L Chan; Tao Gong; Ashley D Harris; Georg Oeltzschner; Nicolaas A J Puts; Kim M Cecil; Iain D Wilkinson; Richard A E Edden Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kimberly L Chan; Muhammad G Saleh; Georg Oeltzschner; Peter B Barker; Richard A E Edden Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 6.556