Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom

Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) is an MRI tool with the potential to reveal pathological changes from magnetic susceptibility measurements. Before phase data can be used to recover susceptibility (Δχ), the QSM process begins with two steps: data acquisition and phase estimation. We assess...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiology research and practice 2021, Vol.2021, p.1898461-18
Hauptverfasser: Keenan, Kathryn E., Berman, Ben P., Rýger, Slávka, Russek, Stephen E., Wang, Wen-Tung, Butman, John A., Pham, Dzung L., Dagher, Joseph
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) is an MRI tool with the potential to reveal pathological changes from magnetic susceptibility measurements. Before phase data can be used to recover susceptibility (Δχ), the QSM process begins with two steps: data acquisition and phase estimation. We assess the performance of these steps, when applied without user intervention, on several variations of a phantom imaging task. We used a rotating-tube phantom with five tubes ranging from Δχ=0.05 ppm to Δχ=0.336 ppm. MRI data was acquired at nine angles of rotation for four different pulse sequences. The images were processed by 10 phase estimation algorithms including Laplacian, region-growing, branch-cut, temporal unwrapping, and maximum-likelihood methods, resulting in approximately 90 different combinations of data acquisition and phase estimation methods. We analyzed errors between measured and expected phases using the probability mass function and Cumulative Distribution Function. Repeatable acquisition and estimation methods were identified based on the probability of relative phase errors. For single-echo GRE and segmented EPI sequences, a region-growing method was most reliable with Pr (relative error
ISSN:2090-1941
2090-195X
DOI:10.1155/2021/1898461