Christian Langkammer1, Ferdinand Schweser2,3, Karin Shmueli4, Christian Kames5, Xu Li6,7, Li Guo8, Carlos Milovic9,10, Jinsuh Kim11, Hongjiang Wei12, Kristian Bredies13, Sagar Buch14, Yihao Guo6, Zhe Liu15, Jakob Meineke16, Alexander Rauscher5, José P Marques17, Berkin Bilgic18. 1. Department of Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 2. Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA. 3. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA. 4. Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 5. UBC MRI Research Centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 6. F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 7. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 8. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Image Processing, School of Biomedical Engineering, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. 9. Department of Electrical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 10. Biomedical Imaging Center, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 11. Department of Radiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 12. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA. 13. Institute of Mathematics and Scientific Computing, University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 14. The MRI Institute for Biomedical Research, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 15. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. 16. Philips Research Europe, Hamburg, Germany. 17. Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 18. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, MGH, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the 2016 quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) reconstruction challenge was to test the ability of various QSM algorithms to recover the underlying susceptibility from phase data faithfully. METHODS: Gradient-echo images of a healthy volunteer acquired at 3T in a single orientation with 1.06 mm isotropic resolution. A reference susceptibility map was provided, which was computed using the susceptibility tensor imaging algorithm on data acquired at 12 head orientations. Susceptibility maps calculated from the single orientation data were compared against the reference susceptibility map. Deviations were quantified using the following metrics: root mean squared error (RMSE), structure similarity index (SSIM), high-frequency error norm (HFEN), and the error in selected white and gray matter regions. RESULTS: Twenty-seven submissions were evaluated. Most of the best scoring approaches estimated the spatial frequency content in the ill-conditioned domain of the dipole kernel using compressed sensing strategies. The top 10 maps in each category had similar error metrics but substantially different visual appearance. CONCLUSION: Because QSM algorithms were optimized to minimize error metrics, the resulting susceptibility maps suffered from over-smoothing and conspicuity loss in fine features such as vessels. As such, the challenge highlighted the need for better numerical image quality criteria. Magn Reson Med 79:1661-1673, 2018.
PURPOSE: The aim of the 2016 quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) reconstruction challenge was to test the ability of various QSM algorithms to recover the underlying susceptibility from phase data faithfully. METHODS: Gradient-echo images of a healthy volunteer acquired at 3T in a single orientation with 1.06 mm isotropic resolution. A reference susceptibility map was provided, which was computed using the susceptibility tensor imaging algorithm on data acquired at 12 head orientations. Susceptibility maps calculated from the single orientation data were compared against the reference susceptibility map. Deviations were quantified using the following metrics: root mean squared error (RMSE), structure similarity index (SSIM), high-frequency error norm (HFEN), and the error in selected white and gray matter regions. RESULTS: Twenty-seven submissions were evaluated. Most of the best scoring approaches estimated the spatial frequency content in the ill-conditioned domain of the dipole kernel using compressed sensing strategies. The top 10 maps in each category had similar error metrics but substantially different visual appearance. CONCLUSION: Because QSM algorithms were optimized to minimize error metrics, the resulting susceptibility maps suffered from over-smoothing and conspicuity loss in fine features such as vessels. As such, the challenge highlighted the need for better numerical image quality criteria. Magn Reson Med 79:1661-1673, 2018.
Authors: Berkin Bilgic; Luke Xie; Russell Dibb; Christian Langkammer; Aysegul Mutluay; Huihui Ye; Jonathan R Polimeni; Jean Augustinack; Chunlei Liu; Lawrence L Wald; Kawin Setsompop Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: E Mark Haacke; Norman Y C Cheng; Michael J House; Qiang Liu; Jaladhar Neelavalli; Robert J Ogg; Asadullah Khan; Muhammad Ayaz; Wolff Kirsch; Andre Obenaus Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Christian Langkammer; Kristian Bredies; Benedikt A Poser; Markus Barth; Gernot Reishofer; Audrey Peiwen Fan; Berkin Bilgic; Franz Fazekas; Caterina Mainero; Stefan Ropele Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Itthi Chatnuntawech; Patrick McDaniel; Stephen F Cauley; Borjan A Gagoski; Christian Langkammer; Adrian Martin; P Ellen Grant; Lawrence L Wald; Kawin Setsompop; Elfar Adalsteinsson; Berkin Bilgic Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Xing Lu; Yajun Ma; Eric Y Chang; Qun He; Adam Searleman; Annette von Drygalski; Jiang Du Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jinwei Zhang; Zhe Liu; Shun Zhang; Hang Zhang; Pascal Spincemaille; Thanh D Nguyen; Mert R Sabuncu; Yi Wang Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Alexandre Boutet; Robert Gramer; Christopher J Steele; Gavin J B Elias; Jürgen Germann; Ricardo Maciel; Walter Kucharczyk; Ludvic Zrinzo; Andres M Lozano; Alfonso Fasano Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 5.081