Maximilian N Voelker1, Oliver Kraff2, Steffen Goerke3, Frederik B Laun4, Jannis Hanspach4, Kerrin J Pine5, Philipp Ehses6, Moritz Zaiss7, Andrzej Liebert4, Sina Straub3, Korbinian Eckstein8, Simon Robinson8, Armin N Nagel4, Maria R Stefanescu9, Astrid Wollrab10, Sabrina Klix11, Jörg Felder12, Michael Hock9, Dario Bosch13, Nikolaus Weiskopf14, Oliver Speck15, Mark E Ladd16, Harald H Quick17. 1. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; High-Field and Hybrid MR Imaging, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. Electronic address: Maximilian.Voelker@uni-due.de. 2. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Division of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Institute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany. 5. Department of Neurophysics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany. 6. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn, Germany. 7. Institute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. 8. High Field MR Center, Department for Biomedical Imaging and Image guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Chair of Cellular and Molecular Imaging, Comprehensive Heart Failure Center (CHFC), University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany. 10. Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 11. Berlin Ultrahigh Field Facility (B.U.F.F.), Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin-Buch, Germany. 12. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-4), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany. 13. Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. 14. Department of Neurophysics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany; Felix Bloch Institute for Solid State Physics, Faculty of Physics and Earth Sciences, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. 15. Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany; Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg, Germany. 16. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; Division of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. 17. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; High-Field and Hybrid MR Imaging, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECT: This study evaluates inter-site and intra-site reproducibility at ten different 7 T sites for quantitative brain imaging. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two subjects - termed the "traveling heads" - were imaged at ten different 7 T sites with a harmonized quantitative brain MR imaging protocol. In conjunction with the system calibration, MP2RAGE, QSM, CEST and multi-parametric mapping/relaxometry were examined. RESULTS: Quantitative measurements with MP2RAGE showed very high reproducibility across sites and subjects, and errors were in concordance with previous results and other field strengths. QSM had high inter-site reproducibility for relevant subcortical volumes. CEST imaging revealed systematic differences between the sites, but reproducibility was comparable to results in the literature. Relaxometry had also very high agreement between sites, but due to the high sensitivity, differences caused by different applications of the B1 calibration of the two RF coil types used were observed. CONCLUSION: Our results show that quantitative brain imaging can be performed with high reproducibility at 7 T and with similar reliability as found at 3 T for multicenter studies of the supratentorial brain.
OBJECT: This study evaluates inter-site and intra-site reproducibility at ten different 7 T sites for quantitative brain imaging. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two subjects - termed the "traveling heads" - were imaged at ten different 7 T sites with a harmonized quantitative brain MR imaging protocol. In conjunction with the system calibration, MP2RAGE, QSM, CEST and multi-parametric mapping/relaxometry were examined. RESULTS: Quantitative measurements with MP2RAGE showed very high reproducibility across sites and subjects, and errors were in concordance with previous results and other field strengths. QSM had high inter-site reproducibility for relevant subcortical volumes. CEST imaging revealed systematic differences between the sites, but reproducibility was comparable to results in the literature. Relaxometry had also very high agreement between sites, but due to the high sensitivity, differences caused by different applications of the B1 calibration of the two RF coil types used were observed. CONCLUSION: Our results show that quantitative brain imaging can be performed with high reproducibility at 7 T and with similar reliability as found at 3 T for multicenter studies of the supratentorial brain.
Authors: Benjamin C Tendler; Karla L Miller; Chaoyue Wang; Aurea B Martins-Bach; Fidel Alfaro-Almagro; Gwenaëlle Douaud; Johannes C Klein; Alberto Llera; Cristiana Fiscone; Richard Bowtell; Lloyd T Elliott; Stephen M Smith Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 28.771
Authors: Caroline Le Ster; Andrea Grant; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Alejandro Monreal-Madrigal; Gregor Adriany; Alexandre Vignaud; Franck Mauconduit; Cécile Rabrait-Lerman; Benedikt A Poser; Kâmil Uğurbil; Nicolas Boulant Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 3.737