Literature DB >> 33822416

Single-step calculation of susceptibility through multiple orientation sampling.

Lin Chen1,2,3, Shuhui Cai1, Peter C M van Zijl2,3, Xu Li2,3.   

Abstract

Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) was developed to estimate the spatial distribution of magnetic susceptibility from MR signal phase acquired using a gradient echo (GRE) sequence. The field-to-susceptibility inversion in QSM is known to be ill-posed and needs numerical stabilization through either regularization or data oversampling. The calculation of susceptibility through the multiple orientation sampling (COSMOS) method uses phase data acquired at three or more head orientations to achieve a well-conditioned field-to-susceptibility inversion and is often considered the gold standard for in vivo QSM. However, the conventional COSMOS approach, here named multistep COSMOS (MSCOSMOS), solves the dipole inversion from the local field derived from raw GRE phase through multiple steps of phase preprocessing. Error propagations between these consecutive phase processing steps can thus affect the final susceptibility quantification. On the other hand, recently proposed single-step QSM (SSQSM) methods aim to solve an integrated inversion from unprocessed or total phase to mitigate such error propagations but have been limited to single orientation QSM. This study therefore aimed to test the feasibility of using single-step COSMOS (SSCOSMOS) to jointly perform background field removal and dipole inversion with multiple orientation sampling, which could serve as a better standard for gauging SSQSM methods. We incorporated multiple spherical mean value (SMV) kernels of various radii with the dipole inversion in SSCOSMOS. QSM reconstructions with SSCOSMOS and MSCOSMOS were compared using both simulations with a numerical head phantom and in vivo human brain data. SSCOSMOS permitted integrated background removal and dipole inversion without the need to adjust any regularization parameters. In addition, with sufficiently large SMV kernels, SSCOSMOS performed consistently better than MSCOSMOS in all the tested error metrics in our simulations, giving better susceptibility quantification and smaller reconstruction error. Consistent tissue susceptibility values were obtained between SSCOSMOS and MSCOSMOS.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  calculation of susceptibility through multiple orientation sampling, ill-posed inversion, quantitative susceptibility mapping, single step, spherical mean value

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33822416      PMCID: PMC8184590          DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4517

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  NMR Biomed        ISSN: 0952-3480            Impact factor:   4.478


  79 in total

1.  Whole-brain susceptibility mapping at high field: a comparison of multiple- and single-orientation methods.

Authors:  Sam Wharton; Richard Bowtell
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  High-field MRI of brain cortical substructure based on signal phase.

Authors:  Jeff H Duyn; Peter van Gelderen; Tie-Qiang Li; Jacco A de Zwart; Alan P Koretsky; Masaki Fukunaga
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-06-22       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Automated adaptive preconditioner for quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Authors:  Zhe Liu; Yan Wen; Pascal Spincemaille; Shun Zhang; Yihao Yao; Thanh D Nguyen; Yi Wang
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2019-08-11       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Magnetic susceptibility contrast variations in multiple sclerosis lesions.

Authors:  Xu Li; Daniel M Harrison; Hongjun Liu; Craig K Jones; Jiwon Oh; Peter A Calabresi; Peter C M van Zijl
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-06-14       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 5.  An illustrated comparison of processing methods for phase MRI and QSM: removal of background field contributions from sources outside the region of interest.

Authors:  Ferdinand Schweser; Simon Daniel Robinson; Ludovic de Rochefort; Wei Li; Kristian Bredies
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 4.044

6.  Region-specific disturbed iron distribution in early idiopathic Parkinson's disease measured by quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Authors:  Naying He; Huawei Ling; Bei Ding; Juan Huang; Yong Zhang; Zhongping Zhang; Chunlei Liu; Kemin Chen; Fuhua Yan
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Mapping magnetic susceptibility anisotropies of white matter in vivo in the human brain at 7 T.

Authors:  Xu Li; Deepti S Vikram; Issel Anne L Lim; Craig K Jones; Jonathan A D Farrell; Peter C M van Zijl
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-04-28       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Background field removal for susceptibility mapping of human brain with large susceptibility variations.

Authors:  Jinsheng Fang; Lijun Bao; Xu Li; Peter C M van Zijl; Zhong Chen
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Quantitative susceptibility mapping: Report from the 2016 reconstruction challenge.

Authors:  Christian Langkammer; Ferdinand Schweser; Karin Shmueli; Christian Kames; Xu Li; Li Guo; Carlos Milovic; Jinsuh Kim; Hongjiang Wei; Kristian Bredies; Sagar Buch; Yihao Guo; Zhe Liu; Jakob Meineke; Alexander Rauscher; José P Marques; Berkin Bilgic
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 4.668

10.  Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping: Contrast Mechanisms and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Chunlei Liu; Hongjiang Wei; Nan-Jie Gong; Matthew Cronin; Russel Dibb; Kyle Decker
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2015-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.