Yang Ji1,2, Jeffrey Paulsen3, Iris Yuwen Zhou2, Dongshuang Lu2, Patrick Machado2,3,4, Bensheng Qiu1, Yi-Qiao Song2,3, Phillip Zhe Sun2,5,6. 1. Center for Biomedical Engineering, Department of Electronic Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China. 2. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts. 3. Schlumberger-Doll Research Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Federal Fluminense University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 5. Yerkes Imaging Center, Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Department of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diffusional kurtosis imaging (DKI) measures the deviation of the displacement probability from a normal distribution, complementing the data commonly acquired by diffusion MRI. It is important to elucidate the sources of kurtosis contrast, particularly in biological tissues where microscopic kurtosis (intrinsic kurtosis) and diffusional heterogeneity may co-exist. METHODS: We have developed a technique for microscopic kurtosis MRI, dubbed microscopic diffusional kurtosis imaging (µDKI), using a symmetrized double diffusion encoding (s-DDE) EPI sequence. We compared this newly developed µDKI to conventional DKI methods in both a triple compartment phantom and in vivo. RESULTS: Our results showed that whereas conventional DKI and µDKI provided similar measurements in a compartment of monosphere beads, kurtosis measured by µDKI was significantly less than that measured by conventional DKI in a compartment of mixed Gaussian pools. For in vivo brain imaging, µDKI showed small yet significantly lower kurtosis measurement in regions of the cortex, CSF, and internal capsule compared to the conventional DKI approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that µDKI is less susceptible than conventional DKI to sub-voxel diffusional heterogeneity. Our study also provided important preliminary demonstration of our technique in vivo, warranting future studies to investigate its diagnostic use in examining neurological disorders.
PURPOSE: Diffusional kurtosis imaging (DKI) measures the deviation of the displacement probability from a normal distribution, complementing the data commonly acquired by diffusion MRI. It is important to elucidate the sources of kurtosis contrast, particularly in biological tissues where microscopic kurtosis (intrinsic kurtosis) and diffusional heterogeneity may co-exist. METHODS: We have developed a technique for microscopic kurtosis MRI, dubbed microscopic diffusional kurtosis imaging (µDKI), using a symmetrized double diffusion encoding (s-DDE) EPI sequence. We compared this newly developed µDKI to conventional DKI methods in both a triple compartment phantom and in vivo. RESULTS: Our results showed that whereas conventional DKI and µDKI provided similar measurements in a compartment of monosphere beads, kurtosis measured by µDKI was significantly less than that measured by conventional DKI in a compartment of mixed Gaussian pools. For in vivo brain imaging, µDKI showed small yet significantly lower kurtosis measurement in regions of the cortex, CSF, and internal capsule compared to the conventional DKI approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that µDKI is less susceptible than conventional DKI to sub-voxel diffusional heterogeneity. Our study also provided important preliminary demonstration of our technique in vivo, warranting future studies to investigate its diagnostic use in examining neurological disorders.
Authors: M E Moseley; Y Cohen; J Mintorovitch; L Chileuitt; H Shimizu; J Kucharczyk; M F Wendland; P R Weinstein Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 1990-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: G Rordorf; W J Koroshetz; W A Copen; S C Cramer; P W Schaefer; R F Budzik; L H Schwamm; F Buonanno; A G Sorensen; G Gonzalez Journal: Stroke Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Michal E Komlosh; Evren Özarslan; Martin J Lizak; Ferenc Horkay; Vincent Schram; Noam Shemesh; Yoram Cohen; Peter J Basser Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Benjamin S Geisler; Frank Brandhoff; Jens Fiehler; Christian Saager; Oliver Speck; Joachim Röther; Hermann Zeumer; Thomas Kucinski Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Yang Ji; W Scott Hoge; Borjan Gagoski; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Yogesh Rathi; Lipeng Ning Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 3.737