4.7 Article

An optimised framework for reconstructing and processing MR phase images

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 1289-1300

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.071

关键词

MR phase image; Tissue susceptibility; Accelerated parallel MRI; Phase optimised image reconstruction; Background phase removal; 7T MRI

资金

  1. Australian National Health Medical Research Council [400317]
  2. Australian Research Council [LX0774759]
  3. Australia Korea Foundation
  4. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) Republic of Korea
  5. Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) [20090065597]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phase contrast imaging holds great potential for in vivo biodistribution studies of paramagnetic molecules and materials. However, in Vivo quantification of iron storage and other paramagnetic materials requires improvements in reconstruction and processing of MR complex images. To achieve this, we have developed a framework including (i) an optimal coil sensitivity smoothing filter for phase imaging determined at the maximal signal to noise ratio, (ii) a phase optimised and a complex image optimised reconstruction approach, and (iii) a magnitude and phase correlation test criterion to determine the low pass filter parameter for background phase removal. The method has been evaluated using 3T and 7T MRI data containing cortical regions, the basal ganglia including the caudate, and the midbrain including the substantia nigra. The optimised reconstruction improves phase image contrast and noise Suppression compared with conventional reconstruction approaches, and the correlation test criterion provides an objective method for separation of the local phase signal from the background phase measurements. Phase values of several brain regions of interest have been calculated, including gray matter (-1.23 Hz at 7T and -0.55 Hz at 3T), caudate (-3.8 Hz at 7T), and the substantia nigra (-6.2 Hz at 7T). (C) 2009 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