PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of using compressed sensing (CS) to accelerate 3D-T1ρ mapping of cartilage and to reduce total scan times without degrading the estimation of T1ρ relaxation times. METHODS: Fully sampled 3D-T1ρ datasets were retrospectively undersampled by factors 2-10. CS reconstruction using 12 different sparsifying transforms were compared, including finite differences, temporal and spatial wavelets, learned transforms using principal component analysis (PCA) and K-means singular value decomposition (K-SVD), explicit exponential models, low rank and low rank plus sparse models. Spatial filtering prior to T1ρ parameter estimation was also tested. Synthetic phantom (n = 6) and in vivo human knee cartilage datasets (n = 7) were included. RESULTS: Most CS methods performed satisfactorily for an acceleration factor (AF) of 2, with relative T1ρ error lower than 4.5%. Some sparsifying transforms, such as spatiotemporal finite difference (STFD), exponential dictionaries (EXP) and low rank combined with spatial finite difference (L+S SFD) significantly improved this performance, reaching average relative T1ρ error below 6.5% on T1ρ relaxation times with AF up to 10, when spatial filtering was used before T1ρ fitting, at the expense of smoothing the T1ρ maps. The STFD achieved 5.1% error at AF = 10 with spatial filtering prior to T1ρ fitting. CONCLUSION: Accelerating 3D-T1ρ mapping of cartilage with CS is feasible up to AF of 10 when using STFD, EXP or L+S SFD regularizers. These three best CS methods performed satisfactorily on synthetic phantom and in vivo knee cartilage for AFs up to 10, with T1ρ error of 6.5%.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of using compressed sensing (CS) to accelerate 3D-T1ρ mapping of cartilage and to reduce total scan times without degrading the estimation of T1ρ relaxation times. METHODS: Fully sampled 3D-T1ρ datasets were retrospectively undersampled by factors 2-10. CS reconstruction using 12 different sparsifying transforms were compared, including finite differences, temporal and spatial wavelets, learned transforms using principal component analysis (PCA) and K-means singular value decomposition (K-SVD), explicit exponential models, low rank and low rank plus sparse models. Spatial filtering prior to T1ρ parameter estimation was also tested. Synthetic phantom (n = 6) and in vivo human knee cartilage datasets (n = 7) were included. RESULTS: Most CS methods performed satisfactorily for an acceleration factor (AF) of 2, with relative T1ρ error lower than 4.5%. Some sparsifying transforms, such as spatiotemporal finite difference (STFD), exponential dictionaries (EXP) and low rank combined with spatial finite difference (L+S SFD) significantly improved this performance, reaching average relative T1ρ error below 6.5% on T1ρ relaxation times with AF up to 10, when spatial filtering was used before T1ρ fitting, at the expense of smoothing the T1ρ maps. The STFD achieved 5.1% error at AF = 10 with spatial filtering prior to T1ρ fitting. CONCLUSION: Accelerating 3D-T1ρ mapping of cartilage with CS is feasible up to AF of 10 when using STFD, EXP or L+S SFD regularizers. These three best CS methods performed satisfactorily on synthetic phantom and in vivo knee cartilage for AFs up to 10, with T1ρ error of 6.5%.
Authors: X Li; C Benjamin Ma; T M Link; D-D Castillo; G Blumenkrantz; J Lozano; J Carballido-Gamio; M Ries; S Majumdar Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-02-16 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Li Feng; Robert Grimm; Kai Tobias Block; Hersh Chandarana; Sungheon Kim; Jian Xu; Leon Axel; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Martin Uecker; Peng Lai; Mark J Murphy; Patrick Virtue; Michael Elad; John M Pauly; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Michael Lustig Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Rajiv G Menon; Marcelo V W Zibetti; Rajan Jain; Yulin Ge; Ravinder R Regatte Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-11-15 Impact factor: 4.813