PURPOSE: To introduce a quantitative tool that enables rapid forecasting of T1 and T2 parameter map errors due to normal and aliasing noise as a function of the MR fingerprinting (MRF) sequence, which can be used in sequence optimization. THEORY AND METHODS: The variances of normal noise and aliasing artifacts in the collected signal are related to the variances in T1 and T2 maps through derived quality factors. This analytical result is tested against the results of a Monte-Carlo approach for analyzing MRF sequence encoding capability in the presence of aliasing noise, and verified with phantom experiments at 3 T. To further show the utility of our approach, our quality factors are used to find efficient MRF sequences for fewer repetitions. RESULTS: Experimental results verify the ability of our quality factors to rapidly assess the efficiency of an MRF sequence in the presence of both normal and aliasing noise. Quality factor assessment of MRF sequences is in agreement with the results of a Monte-Carlo approach. Analysis of MRF parameter map errors from phantom experiments is consistent with the derived quality factors, with T1 (T2 ) data yielding goodness of fit R2 ≥ 0.92 (0.80). In phantom and in vivo experiments, the efficient pulse sequence, determined through quality factor maximization, led to comparable or improved accuracy and precision relative to a longer sequence, demonstrating quality factor utility in MRF sequence design. CONCLUSION: The here introduced quality factor framework allows for rapid analysis and optimization of MRF sequence design through T1 and T2 error forecasting.
PURPOSE: To introduce a quantitative tool that enables rapid forecasting of T1 and T2 parameter map errors due to normal and aliasing noise as a function of the MR fingerprinting (MRF) sequence, which can be used in sequence optimization. THEORY AND METHODS: The variances of normal noise and aliasing artifacts in the collected signal are related to the variances in T1 and T2 maps through derived quality factors. This analytical result is tested against the results of a Monte-Carlo approach for analyzing MRF sequence encoding capability in the presence of aliasing noise, and verified with phantom experiments at 3 T. To further show the utility of our approach, our quality factors are used to find efficient MRF sequences for fewer repetitions. RESULTS: Experimental results verify the ability of our quality factors to rapidly assess the efficiency of an MRF sequence in the presence of both normal and aliasing noise. Quality factor assessment of MRF sequences is in agreement with the results of a Monte-Carlo approach. Analysis of MRF parameter map errors from phantom experiments is consistent with the derived quality factors, with T1 (T2 ) data yielding goodness of fit R2 ≥ 0.92 (0.80). In phantom and in vivo experiments, the efficient pulse sequence, determined through quality factor maximization, led to comparable or improved accuracy and precision relative to a longer sequence, demonstrating quality factor utility in MRF sequence design. CONCLUSION: The here introduced quality factor framework allows for rapid analysis and optimization of MRF sequence design through T1 and T2 error forecasting.
Authors: J Bernarding; J Braun; J Hohmann; U Mansmann; M Hoehn-Berlage; C Stapf; K J Wolf; T Tolxdorff Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ying Gao; Yong Chen; Dan Ma; Yun Jiang; Kelsey A Herrmann; Jason A Vincent; Katherine M Dell; Mitchell L Drumm; Susann M Brady-Kalnay; Mark A Griswold; Chris A Flask; Lan Lu Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Deanna L Langer; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew J Evans; John Trachtenberg; Brian C Wilson; Masoom A Haider Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Erica Dall'Armellina; Stefan K Piechnik; Vanessa M Ferreira; Quang Le Si; Matthew D Robson; Jane M Francis; Florim Cuculi; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Adrian P Banning; Robin P Choudhury; Theodoros D Karamitsos; Stefan Neubauer Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Philip K Lee; Lauren E Watkins; Timothy I Anderson; Guido Buonincontri; Brian A Hargreaves Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-05-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Or Perlman; Kai Herz; Moritz Zaiss; Ouri Cohen; Matthew S Rosen; Christian T Farrar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Debra F McGivney; Rasim Boyacıoğlu; Yun Jiang; Megan E Poorman; Nicole Seiberlich; Vikas Gulani; Kathryn E Keenan; Mark A Griswold; Dan Ma Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Zidan Yu; Shota Hodono; Olga Dergachyova; Tom Hilbert; Bili Wang; Bei Zhang; Ryan Brown; Daniel K Sodickson; Guillaume Madelin; Martijn A Cloos Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Stephen P Jordan; Siyuan Hu; Ignacio Rozada; Debra F McGivney; Rasim Boyacioğlu; Darryl C Jacob; Sherry Huang; Michael Beverland; Helmut G Katzgraber; Matthias Troyer; Mark A Griswold; Dan Ma Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Jana G Delfino; Kalina V Jordanova; Megan E Poorman; Prathyush Chirra; Akshay S Chaudhari; Bettina Baessler; Jessica Winfield; Satish E Viswanath; Nandita M deSouza Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Brendan L Eck; Scott D Flamm; Deborah H Kwon; W H Wilson Tang; Claudia Prieto Vasquez; Nicole Seiberlich Journal: Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 9.795
Authors: Max H C van Riel; Zidan Yu; Shota Hodono; Ding Xia; Hersh Chandarana; Koji Fujimoto; Martijn A Cloos Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 4.044