Stefano Mandija1, Alessandro Sbrizzi1, Ulrich Katscher2, Peter R Luijten1,3, Cornelis A T van den Berg1,4. 1. Center For Image Sciences, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Philips Research Laboratories, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, Imaging Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: MR electrical properties tomography (MR-EPT) aims to measure tissue electrical properties by computing spatial derivatives of measured B1+ data. This computation is very sensitive to spatial fluctuations caused, for example, by noise and Gibbs ringing. In this work, the error arising from the computation of spatial derivatives using finite difference kernels (FD error) has been investigated. In relation to this FD error, it has also been investigated whether mitigation strategies such as Gibbs ringing correction and Gaussian apodization can be beneficial for conductivity reconstructions. METHODS: Conductivity reconstructions were performed on a phantom (by means of simulations and MR measurements at 3T) and on a human brain model. The accuracy was evaluated as a function of image resolution, FD kernel size, k-space windowing, and signal-to-noise ratio. The impact of mitigation strategies was also investigated. RESULTS: The adopted small FD kernel is highly sensitive to spatial fluctuations, whereas the large FD kernel is more noise-robust. However, large FD kernels lead to extended numerical boundary error propagation, which severely hampers the MR-EPT reconstruction accuracy for highly spatially convoluted tissue structures such as the human brain. Mitigation strategies slightly improve the accuracy of conductivity reconstructions. For the adopted derivative kernels and the investigated scenario, MR-EPT conductivity reconstructions show low accuracy: less than 37% of the voxels have a relative error lower than 30%. CONCLUSION: The numerical error introduced by the computation of spatial derivatives using FD kernels is one of the major causes of limited accuracy in Helmholtz-based MR-EPT reconstructions. Magn Reson Med 80:90-100, 2018.
PURPOSE: MR electrical properties tomography (MR-EPT) aims to measure tissue electrical properties by computing spatial derivatives of measured B1+ data. This computation is very sensitive to spatial fluctuations caused, for example, by noise and Gibbs ringing. In this work, the error arising from the computation of spatial derivatives using finite difference kernels (FD error) has been investigated. In relation to this FD error, it has also been investigated whether mitigation strategies such as Gibbs ringing correction and Gaussian apodization can be beneficial for conductivity reconstructions. METHODS: Conductivity reconstructions were performed on a phantom (by means of simulations and MR measurements at 3T) and on a human brain model. The accuracy was evaluated as a function of image resolution, FD kernel size, k-space windowing, and signal-to-noise ratio. The impact of mitigation strategies was also investigated. RESULTS: The adopted small FD kernel is highly sensitive to spatial fluctuations, whereas the large FD kernel is more noise-robust. However, large FD kernels lead to extended numerical boundary error propagation, which severely hampers the MR-EPT reconstruction accuracy for highly spatially convoluted tissue structures such as the human brain. Mitigation strategies slightly improve the accuracy of conductivity reconstructions. For the adopted derivative kernels and the investigated scenario, MR-EPT conductivity reconstructions show low accuracy: less than 37% of the voxels have a relative error lower than 30%. CONCLUSION: The numerical error introduced by the computation of spatial derivatives using FD kernels is one of the major causes of limited accuracy in Helmholtz-based MR-EPT reconstructions. Magn Reson Med 80:90-100, 2018.
Authors: Yicun Wang; Qi Shao; Pierre-Francois Van de Moortele; Emilian Racila; Jiaen Liu; John Bischof; Bin He Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Stefano Mandija; Petar I Petrov; Jord J T Vink; Sebastian F W Neggers; Cornelis A T van den Berg Journal: Brain Topogr Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Frederic Mentink-Vigier; Shannon Helsper; F Andrew Bagdasarian; Jens T Rosenberg; Samuel C Grant Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ilias I Giannakopoulos; Jose E C Serralles; Luca Daniel; Daniel K Sodickson; Athanasios G Polimeridis; Jacob K White; Riccardo Lattanzi Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Stefano Mandija; Ettore F Meliadò; Niek R F Huttinga; Peter R Luijten; Cornelis A T van den Berg Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Soraya Gavazzi; Yulia Shcherbakova; Lambertus W Bartels; Lukas J A Stalpers; Jan J W Lagendijk; Hans Crezee; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Astrid L H M W van Lier Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Soraya Gavazzi; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Mark H F Savenije; H Petra Kok; Peter de Boer; Lukas J A Stalpers; Jan J W Lagendijk; Hans Crezee; Astrid L H M W van Lier Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.668