4.7 Article

A method for estimating and removing streaking artifacts in quantitative susceptibility mapping

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 111-122

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.043

关键词

Quantitative susceptibility mapping; Streaking artifact removal; Multiple sclerosis; High resolution brain imaging

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [NIBIB P41 EB015897, R21HL122759, R01 MH096979]
  2. National Multiple Sclerosis Society [RG4723]
  3. UL1 TR001119 [Clinical Translational Science Awards (CTSA)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) is a novel MRI method for quantifying tissue magnetic property. In the brain, it reflects the molecular composition and microstructure of the local tissue. However, susceptibility maps reconstructed from single-orientation data still suffer from streaking artifacts which obscure structural details and small lesions. We propose and have developed a general method for estimating streaking artifacts and subtracting them from susceptibility maps. Specifically, this method uses a sparse linear equation and least-squares (LSQR)-algorithm-based method to derive an initial estimation of magnetic susceptibility, a fast quantitative susceptibility mapping method to estimate the susceptibility boundaries, and an iterative approach to estimate the susceptibility artifact fromill-conditioned k-space regions only. With a fixed set of parameters for the initial susceptibility estimation and subsequent streaking artifact estimation and removal, the method provides an unbiased estimate of tissue susceptibility with negligible streaking artifacts, as compared to multi-orientation QSM reconstruction. This method allows for improved delineation of white matter lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis and small structures of the human brain with excellent anatomical details. The proposed methodology can be extended to other existing QSM algorithms. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.7
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