Eros Montin1, Riccardo Lattanzi1,2. 1. Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R) and Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. Vilcek Institute of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is used to evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging systems. Accurate and consistent estimations are needed to routinely use SNR to assess coils and image reconstruction techniques. PURPOSE: To identify a reliable and practical method for SNR estimation in multiple-coil reconstructions. STUDY TYPE: Technical evaluation and comparison. SUBJECTS/PHANTOM: A uniform phantom and four healthy volunteers: 35, 38, 39 y/o males, 25 y/o female. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Two-dimensional multislice gradient-echo pulse sequence at 3 T and 7 T. ASSESSMENT: Reference-standard SNR was calculated from 100 multiple replicas. Six SNR methods were compared against it: difference image (DI), analytic array combination (AC), pseudo-multiple-replica (PMR), generalized pseudo-replica (GPR), smoothed image subtraction (SIS), and DI with temporal instability correction (TIC). The assessment was repeated for different multiple-coil reconstructions. STATISTICAL TESTS: SNR methods were evaluated in terms of relative deviation (RD) and normalized mutual information (NMI) with respect to the reference-standard, using a linear regression (0.05 significance level) to assess how different factors affect accuracy. RESULTS: Average RD (phantom) for DI, AC, PMR, GPR, SIS, and TIC was 7.9%, 6%, 6.7%, 10.1%, 40%, and 14.6%, respectively. RD increased with acceleration. SNR maps with AC were the most similar to the reference standard (NMI = 0.358). Considering all brain regions of interest, average RD for all SNR methods varied 96% among volunteers but remained approximately 10% for AC, PMR, and GPR, whereas it was more than 30% for DI, SIS, and TIC. RD was mainly affected by image reconstruction (beta = 12) for AC and SNR entropy for SIS (beta = 19). DATA CONCLUSION: AC provided accurate and robust SNR estimation. PMR and GPR are more generally applicable than AC. DI and TIC should be used only at low acceleration factors, when an additional noise-only scan cannot be acquired. SIS is a single-acquisition alternative to DI for generalized autocalibrating partial parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) reconstructions. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
BACKGROUND: Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is used to evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging systems. Accurate and consistent estimations are needed to routinely use SNR to assess coils and image reconstruction techniques. PURPOSE: To identify a reliable and practical method for SNR estimation in multiple-coil reconstructions. STUDY TYPE: Technical evaluation and comparison. SUBJECTS/PHANTOM: A uniform phantom and four healthy volunteers: 35, 38, 39 y/o males, 25 y/o female. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Two-dimensional multislice gradient-echo pulse sequence at 3 T and 7 T. ASSESSMENT: Reference-standard SNR was calculated from 100 multiple replicas. Six SNR methods were compared against it: difference image (DI), analytic array combination (AC), pseudo-multiple-replica (PMR), generalized pseudo-replica (GPR), smoothed image subtraction (SIS), and DI with temporal instability correction (TIC). The assessment was repeated for different multiple-coil reconstructions. STATISTICAL TESTS: SNR methods were evaluated in terms of relative deviation (RD) and normalized mutual information (NMI) with respect to the reference-standard, using a linear regression (0.05 significance level) to assess how different factors affect accuracy. RESULTS: Average RD (phantom) for DI, AC, PMR, GPR, SIS, and TIC was 7.9%, 6%, 6.7%, 10.1%, 40%, and 14.6%, respectively. RD increased with acceleration. SNR maps with AC were the most similar to the reference standard (NMI = 0.358). Considering all brain regions of interest, average RD for all SNR methods varied 96% among volunteers but remained approximately 10% for AC, PMR, and GPR, whereas it was more than 30% for DI, SIS, and TIC. RD was mainly affected by image reconstruction (beta = 12) for AC and SNR entropy for SIS (beta = 19). DATA CONCLUSION: AC provided accurate and robust SNR estimation. PMR and GPR are more generally applicable than AC. DI and TIC should be used only at low acceleration factors, when an additional noise-only scan cannot be acquired. SIS is a single-acquisition alternative to DI for generalized autocalibrating partial parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) reconstructions. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Olaf Dietrich; José G Raya; Scott B Reeder; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Philip M Robson; Aaron K Grant; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Riccardo Lattanzi; Daniel K Sodickson; Charles A McKenzie Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Riccardo Lattanzi; Aaron K Grant; Jonathan R Polimeni; Michael A Ohliger; Graham C Wiggins; Lawrence L Wald; Daniel K Sodickson Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Souheil J Inati; Joseph D Naegele; Nicholas R Zwart; Vinai Roopchansingh; Martin J Lizak; David C Hansen; Chia-Ying Liu; David Atkinson; Peter Kellman; Sebastian Kozerke; Hui Xue; Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Thomas S Sørensen; Michael S Hansen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Bili Wang; Syed S Siddiq; Jerzy Walczyk; Mary Bruno; Iman Khodarahmi; Inge M Brinkmann; Robert Rehner; Karthik Lakshmanan; Jan Fritz; Ryan Brown Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 4.996