4.7 Article

Relaxation Times of Skeletal Muscle Metabolites at 7T

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 1457-1464

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21787

关键词

relaxation times; 7T; nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy; skeletal muscle

资金

  1. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) [RO1-AR053133-01A2]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [R01AR053133] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To demonstrate the feasibility of quantitatively evaluating and measuring T(1) and T(2) relaxation times of human tibialis anterior (TA) muscles metabolites in vivo at. 7T and to compare these results with those of 3T. Materials and Methods: A model lipid phantom (corn oil) and healthy volunteers (n = 4, mean +/- SD age 35.6 +/- 5.6 years) were scanned on 3T and 7T whole-body MR scanners. A voxel of 10 x 10 x 10 mm(3) was positioned on the lipid phantom and right calf TA muscles using the single-voxel stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) pulse sequence. All magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) data were processed with Java-based Magnetic Resonance User Interface (JMRUI) using Hankel Lanezos Singular Value Decomposition (HLSVD) filtering to remove the residual water signal. Results: T(1) shows a steady increase while T(2) shows a slight decrease with B(0) and the spectra show larger spectral resolution at 7T than at 3T in the lipid phantom. T(1) values of all the metabolites are higher, while T(2) values are slightly lower at 7T than those of 3T compared to reported results in TA. The maximum percentage of increase in T(1) is about approximate to 488%, the maximum percentage of decrease in T2 is about approximate to 65%. Conclusion: The preliminary results can potentially be used for calculating relaxation correction factors required for absolute quantitation of skeletal muscle metabolite concentrations and for further protocol and sequence optimization.

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