Ken Sakaie1, Mark Lowe2. 1. Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, Mail Code U15 9500, Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, United States. Electronic address: sakaiek@ccf.org. 2. Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, Mail Code U15 9500, Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, United States. Electronic address: lowem1@ccf.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify and retrospectively correct for systematic differences in diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) measurements due to differences in coil combination mode. BACKGROUND: Multi-channel coils are now standard among MRI systems. There are several options for combining signal from multiple coils during image reconstruction, including sum-of-squares (SOS) and adaptive combine (AC). This contribution examines the bias between SOS- and AC-derived measures of tissue microstructure and a strategy for limiting that bias. METHODS: Five healthy subjects were scanned under an institutional review board-approved protocol. Each set of raw image data was reconstructed twice-once with SOS and once with AC. The diffusion tensor was calculated from SOS- and AC-derived data by two algorithms-standard log-linear least squares and an approach that accounts for the impact of coil combination on signal statistics. Systematic differences between SOS and AC in terms of tissue microstructure (axial diffusivity, radial diffusivity, mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy) were evaluated on a voxel-by-voxel basis. RESULTS: SOS-based tissue microstructure values are systematically lower than AC-based measures throughout the brain in each subject when using the standard tensor calculation method. The difference between SOS and AC can be virtually eliminated by taking into account the signal statistics associated with coil combination. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of coil combination mode on diffusion tensor-based measures of tissue microstructure is statistically significant but can be corrected retrospectively. The ability to do so is expected to facilitate pooling of data among imaging protocols. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: To quantify and retrospectively correct for systematic differences in diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) measurements due to differences in coil combination mode. BACKGROUND: Multi-channel coils are now standard among MRI systems. There are several options for combining signal from multiple coils during image reconstruction, including sum-of-squares (SOS) and adaptive combine (AC). This contribution examines the bias between SOS- and AC-derived measures of tissue microstructure and a strategy for limiting that bias. METHODS: Five healthy subjects were scanned under an institutional review board-approved protocol. Each set of raw image data was reconstructed twice-once with SOS and once with AC. The diffusion tensor was calculated from SOS- and AC-derived data by two algorithms-standard log-linear least squares and an approach that accounts for the impact of coil combination on signal statistics. Systematic differences between SOS and AC in terms of tissue microstructure (axial diffusivity, radial diffusivity, mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy) were evaluated on a voxel-by-voxel basis. RESULTS:SOS-based tissue microstructure values are systematically lower than AC-based measures throughout the brain in each subject when using the standard tensor calculation method. The difference between SOS and AC can be virtually eliminated by taking into account the signal statistics associated with coil combination. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of coil combination mode on diffusion tensor-based measures of tissue microstructure is statistically significant but can be corrected retrospectively. The ability to do so is expected to facilitate pooling of data among imaging protocols. Copyright Â
Authors: David S Tuch; Timothy G Reese; Mette R Wiegell; Nikos Makris; John W Belliveau; Van J Wedeen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jelle Veraart; Jeny Rajan; Ronald R Peeters; Alexander Leemans; Stefan Sunaert; Jan Sijbers Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S N Sotiropoulos; S Moeller; S Jbabdi; J Xu; J L Andersson; E J Auerbach; E Yacoub; D Feinberg; K Setsompop; L L Wald; T E J Behrens; K Ugurbil; C Lenglet Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Cornelius Eichner; Stephen F Cauley; Julien Cohen-Adad; Harald E Möller; Robert Turner; Kawin Setsompop; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Xiaopeng Zhou; Ken E Sakaie; Josef P Debbins; Sridar Narayanan; Robert J Fox; Mark J Lowe Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 2.546