Literature DB >> 35381121

Impact of material homogeneity assumption on cortical stiffness estimates by MR elastography.

Jonathan M Scott1, KowsalyaDevi Pavuluri2, Joshua D Trzasko2, Armando Manduca3, Matthew L Senjem2, John Huston2, Richard L Ehman2, Matthew C Murphy2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Inversion algorithms used to convert acquired MR elastography wave data into material property estimates often assume that the underlying materials are locally homogeneous. Here we evaluate the impact of that assumption on stiffness estimates in gray-matter regions of interest in brain MR elastography.
METHODS: We describe an updated neural network inversion framework using finite-difference model-derived data to train convolutional neural network inversion algorithms. Neural network inversions trained on homogeneous simulations (homogeneous learned inversions [HLIs]) or inhomogeneous simulations (inhomogeneous learned inversions [ILIs]) are generated with a variety of kernel sizes. These inversions are evaluated in a brain MR elastography simulation experiment and in vivo in a test-retest repeatability experiment including 10 healthy volunteers.
RESULTS: In simulation and in vivo, HLI and ILI with small kernels produce similar results. As kernel size increases, the assumption of homogeneity has a larger effect, and HLI and ILI stiffness estimates show larger differences. At each inversion's optimal kernel size in simulation (7 × 7 × 7 for HLI, 11 × 11 × 11 for ILI), ILI is more sensitive to true changes in stiffness in gray-matter regions of interest in simulation. In vivo, there is no difference in the region-level repeatability of stiffness estimates between the inversions, although ILI appears to better maintain the stiffness map structure as kernel size increases, while decreasing the spatial variance in stiffness estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that inhomogeneous inversions provide small but significant benefits even when large stiffness gradients are absent.
© 2022 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  artificial neural networks; brain stiffness; inversion; magnetic resonance elastography

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35381121      PMCID: PMC9561798          DOI: 10.1002/mrm.29226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   3.737


  29 in total

1.  Simulation of harmonic shear waves in the human brain and comparison with measurements from magnetic resonance elastography.

Authors:  Yang Li; Ruth Okamoto; Andrew Badachhape; Chengwei Wu; Philip Bayly; Nitin Daphalapurkar
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2021-03-17

2.  Artificial neural networks for magnetic resonance elastography stiffness estimation in inhomogeneous materials.

Authors:  Jonathan M Scott; Arvin Arani; Armando Manduca; Kiaran P McGee; Joshua D Trzasko; John Huston; Richard L Ehman; Matthew C Murphy
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 8.545

3.  Magnetic resonance elastography detects tumoral consistency in pituitary macroadenomas.

Authors:  Joshua D Hughes; Nikoo Fattahi; J Van Gompel; Arvin Arani; Richard Ehman; John Huston
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.107

4.  Phantom evaluations of nonlinear inversion MR elastography.

Authors:  Ligin M Solamen; Matthew D McGarry; Likun Tan; John B Weaver; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  In vivo viscoelastic properties of the brain in normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Authors:  Kaspar-Josche Streitberger; Edzard Wiener; Jan Hoffmann; Florian Baptist Freimann; Dieter Klatt; Jürgen Braun; Kui Lin; Joyce McLaughlin; Christian Sprung; Randolf Klingebiel; Ingolf Sack
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 4.044

6.  MR Elastography Analysis of Glioma Stiffness and IDH1-Mutation Status.

Authors:  K M Pepin; K P McGee; A Arani; D S Lake; K J Glaser; A Manduca; I F Parney; R L Ehman; J Huston
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  Effect of Aging on the Viscoelastic Properties of Hippocampal Subfields Assessed with High-Resolution MR Elastography.

Authors:  Peyton L Delgorio; Lucy V Hiscox; Ana M Daugherty; Faria Sanjana; Ryan T Pohlig; James M Ellison; Christopher R Martens; Hillary Schwarb; Matthew D J McGarry; Curtis L Johnson
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 5.357

8.  Aerobic fitness, hippocampal viscoelasticity, and relational memory performance.

Authors:  Hillary Schwarb; Curtis L Johnson; Ana M Daugherty; Charles H Hillman; Arthur F Kramer; Neal J Cohen; Aron K Barbey
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Combining viscoelasticity, diffusivity and volume of the hippocampus for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease based on magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Lea M Gerischer; Andreas Fehlner; Theresa Köbe; Kristin Prehn; Daria Antonenko; Ulrike Grittner; Jürgen Braun; Ingolf Sack; Agnes Flöel
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 4.881

10.  Standard-space atlas of the viscoelastic properties of the human brain.

Authors:  Lucy V Hiscox; Matthew D J McGarry; Hillary Schwarb; Elijah E W Van Houten; Ryan T Pohlig; Neil Roberts; Graham R Huesmann; Agnieszka Z Burzynska; Bradley P Sutton; Charles H Hillman; Arthur F Kramer; Neal J Cohen; Aron K Barbey; Keith D Paulsen; Curtis L Johnson
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 5.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.