4.5 Article

Calculating potential error in sodium MRI with respect to the analysis of small objects

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 79, Issue 6, Pages 2968-2977

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26962

Keywords

sodium; MRI; brain; quantification; multiple sclerosis

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  2. National MS Society (USA)
  3. Alberta Innovates Health Solutions
  4. Canada Research Chairs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo facilitate correct interpretation of sodium MRI measurements, calculation of error with respect to rapid signal decay is introduced and combined with that of spatially correlated noise to assess volume-of-interest (VOI) Na-23 signal measurement inaccuracies, particularly for small objects. MethodsNoise and signal decay-related error calculations were verified using twisted projection imaging and a specially designed phantom with different sized spheres of constant elevated sodium concentration. As a demonstration, lesion signal measurement variation (5 multiple sclerosis participants) was compared with that predicted from calculation. ResultsBoth theory and phantom experiment showed that VOI signal measurement in a large 10-mL, 314-voxel sphere was 20% less than expected on account of point-spread-function smearing when the VOI was drawn to include the full sphere. Volume-of-interest contraction reduced this error but increased noise-related error. Errors were even greater for smaller spheres (40-60% less than expected for a 0.35-mL, 11-voxel sphere). Image-intensity VOI measurements varied and increased with multiple sclerosis lesion size in a manner similar to that predicted from theory. Correlation suggests large underestimation of Na-23 signal in small lesions. ConclusionsAcquisition-specific measurement error calculation aids Na-23 MRI data analysis and highlights the limitations of current low-resolution methodologies. Magn Reson Med 79:2968-2977, 2018. (c) 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available