Dong Zhou1, Junghun Cho2, Jingwei Zhang2, Pascal Spincemaille1, Yi Wang1,2. 1. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the accuracy of quantitative susceptibility mapping in a gadolinium balloon phantom with a large range of susceptibility values and imaging resolutions at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T). THEORY AND METHODS: The phantom contained sources with susceptibility values of 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, and 3.2 ppm and was imaged at isotropic resolutions of 0.7, 0.8, 1.2, and 1.8 mm. Numerical simulations were performed to match the experimental findings. Voxel sensitivity effects were used to explain the susceptibility underestimations. RESULTS: Both phantom data and simulation demonstrated that systematic underestimation of the susceptibility values increased with voxel size, field strength, and object susceptibility. CONCLUSION: The underestimation originates from the signal formation in a voxel, which can be described by the voxel sensitivity function. The amount of underestimation is thus affected by imaging resolution, magnitude contrast, image filtering, and details of the susceptibility inclusions such as the susceptibility value and geometry. High-resolution imaging is therefore needed for accurate reconstruction of QSM values, especially at higher susceptibilities. Magn Reson Med 78:1080-1086, 2017.
PURPOSE: We assessed the accuracy of quantitative susceptibility mapping in a gadolinium balloon phantom with a large range of susceptibility values and imaging resolutions at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T). THEORY AND METHODS: The phantom contained sources with susceptibility values of 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, and 3.2 ppm and was imaged at isotropic resolutions of 0.7, 0.8, 1.2, and 1.8 mm. Numerical simulations were performed to match the experimental findings. Voxel sensitivity effects were used to explain the susceptibility underestimations. RESULTS: Both phantom data and simulation demonstrated that systematic underestimation of the susceptibility values increased with voxel size, field strength, and object susceptibility. CONCLUSION: The underestimation originates from the signal formation in a voxel, which can be described by the voxel sensitivity function. The amount of underestimation is thus affected by imaging resolution, magnitude contrast, image filtering, and details of the susceptibility inclusions such as the susceptibility value and geometry. High-resolution imaging is therefore needed for accurate reconstruction of QSM values, especially at higher susceptibilities. Magn Reson Med 78:1080-1086, 2017.
Authors: Yan Wen; Thanh D Nguyen; Zhe Liu; Pascal Spincemaille; Dong Zhou; Alexey Dimov; Youngwook Kee; Kofi Deh; Jiwon Kim; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Nicholas Hobson; Sean P Polster; Ying Cao; Kelly Flemming; Yunhong Shu; John Huston; Chandra Y Gerrard; Reed Selwyn; Marc Mabray; Atif Zafar; Romuald Girard; Julián Carrión-Penagos; Yu Fen Chen; Todd Parrish; Xiaohong Joe Zhou; James I Koenig; Robert Shenkar; Agnieszka Stadnik; Janne Koskimäki; Alexey Dimov; Dallas Turley; Timothy Carroll; Issam A Awad Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Anjan Bhattarai; Zhaolin Chen; Phillip G D Ward; Paul Talman; Susan Mathers; Thanh G Phan; Caron Chapman; James Howe; Sarah Lee; Yennie Lie; Gary F Egan; Phyllis Chua Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-07
Authors: Arnold M Evia; Aikaterini Kotrotsou; Ashish A Tamhane; Robert J Dawe; Alifiya Kapasi; Sue E Leurgans; Julie A Schneider; David A Bennett; Konstantinos Arfanakis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.240