4.5 Article

Mitigation of Partial Volume Effects in Susceptibility-Based Oxygenation Measurements by Joint Utilization of Magnitude and Phase (JUMP)

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 77, 期 4, 页码 1713-1727

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26227

关键词

susceptibility-weighted imaging; oxygenation; partial volume effects; quantitative susceptibility mapping

资金

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering [R01-EB017337, P41-EB015896, 1U01MH093765, R00EB012107, R24MH106096, T32 EB001680]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Susceptibility-based blood oxygenation measurements in small vessels of the brain derive from gradient echo (GRE) phase and can provide localized assessment of brain function and pathology. However, when vessel diameter becomes smaller than the acquisition voxel size, partial volume effects compromise these measurements. The purpose of this study was to develop a technique to improve the reliability of vessel oxygenation estimates in the presence of partial volume effects. Methods: Intravoxel susceptibility variations are present when a vessel and parenchyma experience partial volume effects, modifying the voxel's GRE phase signal and attenuating the GRE magnitude signal. Using joint utilization of magnitude and phase (JUMP), both vessel susceptibility and voxel partial volume fraction can be estimated, providing measurements of venous oxygen saturation (Y-v) in straight, nearly vertical vessels that have improved robustness to partial volume effects. Results: JUMP was demonstrated by estimating vessel Yv in numerical and in vivo experiments. Deviations from ground truth of Y-v measurements in vessels tilted up to 30(circle) from B-0 were reduced by over 50% when using JUMP compared with phase-only techniques. Conclusion: JUMP exploits both magnitude and phase data in GRE imaging to mitigate partial volume effects in estimation of vessel oxygenation. Magn Reson Med 77: 1713- 1727, 2017. (C) 2016 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