4.5 Article

Experimental Considerations for Fast Kurtosis Imaging

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 76, 期 5, 页码 1455-1468

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26055

关键词

diffusion; kurtosis; higher-order tensors; orientational sampling; fractional anisotropy

资金

  1. NIH [1R01EB012874-01]
  2. Lundbeck Foundation [R83-A7548]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The clinical use of kurtosis imaging is impeded by long acquisitions and postprocessing. Recently, estimation of mean kurtosis tensor (W) over bar and mean diffusivity ((D) over bar) was made possible from 13 distinct diffusion weighted MRI acquisitions (the 1-3-9 protocol) with simple postprocessing. Here, we analyze the effects of noise and nonideal diffusion encoding, and propose a new correction strategy. We also present a 1-9-9 protocol with increased robustness to experimental imperfections and minimal additional scan time. This refinement does not affect computation time and also provides a fast estimate of fractional anisotropy (FA). Theory and Methods: 1-3-9/1-9-9 data are acquired in rat and human brains, and estimates of (D) over bar, FA, (W) over bar from human brains are compared with traditional estimates from an extensive diffusion kurtosis imaging data set. Simulations are used to evaluate the influence of noise and diffusion encodings deviating from the scheme, and the performance of the correction strategy. Optimal b-values are determined from simulations and data. Results: Accuracy and precision in (D) over bar and (W) over bar are comparable to nonlinear least squares estimation, and is improved with the 1-9-9 protocol. The compensation strategy vastly improves parameter estimation in nonideal data. Conclusion: The framework offers a robust and compact method for estimating several diffusion metrics. The protocol is easily implemented. (C) 2015 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据