To mask or not to mask? Investigating the impact of accounting for spatial frequency distributions and susceptibility sources on QSM quality

PurposeEstimating magnetic susceptibility using MRI depends on inverting a forward relationship between the susceptibility and measured Larmor frequency. However, an often-overlooked constraint in susceptibility fitting is that the Larmor frequency is only measured inside the sample, and after successful background field removal, susceptibility sources should only reside inside the same sample. Here, we test the impact of accounting for these constraints in susceptibility fitting. Theory and MethodsTwo different digital brain phantoms with scalar susceptibility were examined. We used the MEDI phantom, a simple phantom with no background fields, to examine the effect of the imposed constraints for various levels of SNR. Next, we considered the QSM reconstruction challenge 2.0 phantom with and without background fields. We estimated the parameter accuracy of openly-available QSM algorithms by comparing fitting results to the ground truth. Next, we implemented the mentioned constraints and compared to the standard approach. ResultsIncluding the spatial distribution of frequencies and susceptibility sources decreased the RMS-error compared to standard QSM on both brain phantoms when background fields were absent. When background field removal was unsuccessful, as is presumably the case in most in vivo conditions, it is better to allow sources outside the brain. ConclusionInforming QSM algorithms about the location of susceptibility sources and where Larmor frequency was measured improves susceptibility fitting for realistic SNR levels and efficient background field removal. However, the latter remains the bottleneck of the algorithm. Allowing for external sources regularizes unsuccessful background field removal and is currently the best strategy in vivo.

Automated summary

Estimating magnetic susceptibility using MRI relies on inverting the relationship between susceptibility and measured Larmor frequency. This study tests the impact of accounting for the constraint that Larmor frequency is only measured inside the sample and susceptibility sources should only reside inside the same sample.