Zhe Liu1,2, Pascal Spincemaille1, Yihao Yao1,3, Yan Zhang3, 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. 3. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) method with a consistent zero reference using minimal variation in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) susceptibility. THEORY AND METHODS: The ventricular CSF was automatically segmented on the R2* map. An L2 -regularization was used to enforce CSF susceptibility homogeneity within the segmented region, with the averaged CSF susceptibility as the zero reference. This regularization for CSF homogeneity was added to the model used in a prior QSM method (morphology enabled dipole inversion [MEDI]). Therefore, the proposed method was referred to as MEDI+0 and compared with MEDI in a numerical simulation, in multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions, and in a reproducibility study in healthy subjects. RESULTS: In both the numerical simulations and in vivo experiments, MEDI+0 not only decreased the susceptibility variation within the ventricular CSF, but also suppressed the artifact near the lateral ventricles. In the simulation, MEDI+0 also provided more accurate quantification compared to MEDI in the globus pallidus, substantia nigra, corpus callosum, and internal capsule. MEDI+0 measurements of MS lesion susceptibility were in good agreement with those obtained by MEDI. Finally, both MEDI+0 and MEDI showed good and similar intrasubject reproducibility. CONCLUSION: QSM with a minimal variation in ventricular CSF is viable to provide a consistent zero reference while improving image quality. Magn Reson Med 79:2795-2803, 2018.
PURPOSE: To develop a quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) method with a consistent zero reference using minimal variation in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) susceptibility. THEORY AND METHODS: The ventricular CSF was automatically segmented on the R2* map. An L2 -regularization was used to enforce CSF susceptibility homogeneity within the segmented region, with the averaged CSF susceptibility as the zero reference. This regularization for CSF homogeneity was added to the model used in a prior QSM method (morphology enabled dipole inversion [MEDI]). Therefore, the proposed method was referred to as MEDI+0 and compared with MEDI in a numerical simulation, in multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions, and in a reproducibility study in healthy subjects. RESULTS: In both the numerical simulations and in vivo experiments, MEDI+0 not only decreased the susceptibility variation within the ventricular CSF, but also suppressed the artifact near the lateral ventricles. In the simulation, MEDI+0 also provided more accurate quantification compared to MEDI in the globus pallidus, substantia nigra, corpus callosum, and internal capsule. MEDI+0 measurements of MS lesion susceptibility were in good agreement with those obtained by MEDI. Finally, both MEDI+0 and MEDI showed good and similar intrasubject reproducibility. CONCLUSION: QSM with a minimal variation in ventricular CSF is viable to provide a consistent zero reference while improving image quality. Magn Reson Med 79:2795-2803, 2018.
Authors: Hongfu Sun; Mahesh Kate; Laura C Gioia; Derek J Emery; Kenneth Butcher; Alan H Wilman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jeff H Duyn; Peter van Gelderen; Tie-Qiang Li; Jacco A de Zwart; Alan P Koretsky; Masaki Fukunaga Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-06-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Tian Liu; Pascal Spincemaille; Ludovic de Rochefort; Richard Wong; Martin Prince; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Kofi Deh; Thanh D Nguyen; Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Martin R Prince; Pascal Spincemaille; Susan Gauthier; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Yan Zhang; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Tian Liu; Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Andrew D Schweitzer; Weiwei Chen; Michael G Kaplitt; A John Tsiouris; Yi Wang Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shun Zhang; Gloria Chia-Yi Chiang; Jacquelyn Marion Knapp; Christina M Zecca; Diana He; Rohan Ramakrishna; Rajiv S Magge; David J Pisapia; Howard Alan Fine; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Yize Zhao; Linda A Heier; Yi Wang; Ilhami Kovanlikaya Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 3.447
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: Ulrike W Kaunzner; Yeona Kang; Shun Zhang; Eric Morris; Yihao Yao; Sneha Pandya; Sandra M Hurtado Rua; Calvin Park; Kelly M Gillen; Thanh D Nguyen; Yi Wang; David Pitt; Susan A Gauthier Journal: Brain Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Zhe Liu; Yan Wen; Pascal Spincemaille; Shun Zhang; Yihao Yao; Thanh D Nguyen; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-08-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ramin Jafari; Sujit Sheth; Pascal Spincemaille; Thanh D Nguyen; Martin R Prince; Yan Wen; Yihao Guo; Kofi Deh; Zhe Liu; Daniel Margolis; Gary M Brittenham; Andrea S Kierans; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-13 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ramin Jafari; Stefanie J Hectors; Anne K Koehne de González; Pascal Spincemaille; Martin R Prince; Gary M Brittenham; Yi Wang Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Kofi Deh; Keigo Kawaji; Marjolein Bulk; Louise Van Der Weerd; Emelie Lind; Pascal Spincemaille; Kelly McCabe Gillen; Johan Van Auderkerke; Yi Wang; Thanh D Nguyen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 4.668