| Literature DB >> 35720027 |
Ben Shan1,2, Haiyan Ding3, Qianzao Lin2, Xiaohua Zuo4, Lili Lin5, Dongyang Yu2, Chunhong Hu1.
Abstract
Echo asymmetry and least square estimation-IQ (IDEAL-IQ) were used to quantify fat and iron to verify the effects of collection parameters on repeatability and image quality of water and fat in human vertebral body. Six IDEAL-IQ sequences were used to scan 48 healthy adult women. Reproducibility of fat and iron quantification and image quality were assessed for six IDEAL-IQ sequences. The results showed that the correlation index (0.987, 0.721) of FF and R2∗ between scans of sequence 2 was higher than that of other sequences, and the consistency of fat quantification was better than that of iron (0.860 vs. 0.579) (P < 0.001). Sequence 2 had the highest image quality score (4.9) and the lowest CV score (9.2%). In the FF figure, SNR (18.8) and CNR (17.8 ± 6.4) were the highest, while CV was the lowest (36.7%, 36.1%). In the R2∗ figure, sequence 3 had the highest SNR (21.8) and CNR (20.5), but its CV (51.8% and 56.1%) was significantly higher than that of sequence 2. The occurrence of fat-water exchange (FWS) was lowest in sequence 2 and sequence 4 (0, N = 96). In conclusion, the fat quantification of IDEAL-IQ was robust to the changes of collection parameters, and section thickness (ST) had a certain effect on maintaining good repeatability of R2∗ quantification. The higher the ST was, the better the image quality of FF and R2∗ was maintained and stable and the less the occurrence of FWS.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720027 PMCID: PMC9203175 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2229160
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Supplementary detailed parameters of each IDEAL-IQ sequence.
| Sequence 1 | Sequence 2 | Sequence 3 | Sequence 4 | Sequence 5 | Sequence 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slice thickness (mm) | 2.7 |
| 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 |
| Echo train length | 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 3 | 3 |
| NEX | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Flip angle (°) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 3 |
| Bandwidth (Hz) | 83.33 | 83.33 | 83.33 | 83.33 | 83.33 |
|
| Scan time (s) | 31 |
|
|
| 31 |
|
Bold italics: each adjusted parameter per sequence relative to sequence 1 was marked by bold italics.
Figure 1Image quality assessment and ROI delineation strategy. (a) FF and (b) (R2∗), 77 years old, sequence 2, the border and internal structure of vertebrae were perfectly displayed, scored 5 points. The schematic ROI of L3 was marked in blue and the contrast ROI in red. (c) FF and (d) R2∗, 33 years, sequence 5, most site of the border and internal structure of vertebrae could hardly be distinguished, scored 1 point. (e) FF and (f) R2∗, 46 years, sequence 3, a complete fat-water swap could be observed, with all regions of the FF map being disturbed. (g) FF and (h) R2∗, 53 years, sequence 6, a partial fat-water swap was observed, with some area of the FF map being disturbed.
Main characteristics of 48 participants.
| Average | Range | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 51.9 ± 11.8 | 26~79 |
| Weight (kg) | 62.1 ± 8.8 | 45~89 |
| Height (cm) | 158.8 ± 4.7 | 145~168 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.6 ± 3.6 | 17.6~35.6 |
| BMD (g/cm2) | 0.986 ± 0.199 | 0.537~1.452 |
|
| 0.5 ± 1.2 | -1.8~4.3 |
|
| −0.4 ± 1.7 | -4.3~4.4 |
BMI = body mass index; BMD = bone mineral density.
Fat fraction and R2∗ measurements and interscan and intersequence agreement analyses.
| Sequence 1 | Sequence 2 | Sequence 3 | Sequence 4 | Sequence 5 | Sequence 6 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 1st scan | 46.2 ± 12.9% | 45.7 ± 12.9% | 48.3 ± 16.8% | 46.1 ± 12.9% | 46.2 ± 11.9% | 46.3 ± 12.9% |
| 2nd scan | 46.2 ± 13.3% | 45.6 ± 12.7% | 48.5 ± 16.8% | 46.1 ± 13.2% | 45.0 ± 11.0% | 46.2 ± 13.4% | |
| Pooled | 46.2 ± 13.1% | 45.7 ± 12.8% | 48.4 ± 15.6% | 46.1 ± 12.9% | 45.6 ± 11.3% | 46.2 ± 12.8% | |
| Interscan ICC | 0.976∗ | 0.987∗ | 0.725∗ | 0.961∗ | 0.952∗ | 0.898∗ | |
| Intersequence ICC | 0.860∗ | ||||||
| R2∗ | 1st scan | 154.6 ± 38.2 | 151.5 ± 33.7 | 155.0 ± 32.1 | 158.7 ± 33.1 | 144.1 ± 23.9 | 154.5 ± 36.6 |
| 2nd scan | 155.2 ± 30.1 | 148.2 ± 31.3 | 153.5 ± 34.2 | 158.5 ± 30.8 | 143.0 ± 32.3 | 161.6 ± 53.6 | |
| Pooled | 154.9 ± 30.7 | 149.9 ± 30.2 | 154.3 ± 27.8 | 158.6 ± 29.1 | 143.6 ± 24.1 | 158.1 ± 40.7 | |
| Interscan ICC | 0.597∗ | 0.721∗ | 0.412# | 0.664∗ | 0.447∗ | 0.577∗ | |
| Intersequence ICC | 0.579∗ | ||||||
FF = fat fraction; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient. ∗P < 0.001 and #P < 0.01.
Figure 2The Bland-Altman plots of each sequence for FF and R2∗ quantification (Online Resource). (a)–(f) were plots for FF quantification, g-l for R2∗, of sequence 1-6, respectively. Sequence 2 showed the best agreement for both FF and R2∗ quantification.
Image quality assessment of each sequence.
| Sequence 1 | Sequence 2 | Sequence 3 | Sequence 4 | Sequence 5 | Sequence 6 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | Image quality score | 3.4 (2-5) | 4.9 (3-5) | 3.5 (1-5) | 3.8 (2-5) | 1.8 (1-4) | 2.7 (2-5) |
| CV | 17.0% | 9.2% | 21.7% | 13.7% | 33.5% | 23.3% | |
| FF | SNR | 11.9 (5.2-27.0) | 18.8 (7.0-34.3) | 17.7 (6.3-44.3) | 14.5 (6.8-34.0) | 7.7 (3.9-19.0) | 10.9 (5.0-24.7) |
| CV | 38.3% | 36.7% | 49.2% | 39.4% | 42.8% | 39.3% | |
| CNR | 10.9 (4.8-25.8) | 17.8 ± 6.4 | 14.6 ± 6.8 | 13.6 ± 5.3 | 6.6 ± 3.0 | 9.5 ± 4.1 | |
| CV | 36.9% | 36.1% | 46.6% | 39.2% | 46.0% | 43.0% | |
| R2∗ | SNR | 13.0 (6.5-76.3) | 16.3 (9.2-27.1) | 21.8 (8.4-79.8) | 13.8 ± 3.8 | 6.9 (3.0-43.7) | 10.1 (4.6-23.4) |
| CV | 76.8% | 26.1% | 51.8% | 27.5% | 84.3% | 35.3% | |
| CNR | 12.1 (5.6-76.0) | 14.8 ± 4.2 | 20.5 (7.1-79.5) | 12.7 ± 3.9 | 6.1 (2.2-43.2) | 9.2 (3.4-22.7) | |
| CV | 83.5% | 28.4% | 56.1% | 30.8% | 96.1% | 39.1% |
SNR = signal to noise ratio; CNR = contrast to noise ratio; CV = coefficient of variation.
Frequency of fat-water swap in different sequences.
| Sequence 1 | Sequence 2 | Sequence 3 | Sequence 4 | Sequence 5 | Sequence 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fat-water swap | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 4 |