4.5 Article

Transverse relaxation and flip angle mapping: Evaluation of simultaneous and independent methods using multiple spin echoes

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 77, 期 5, 页码 2057-2065

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26285

关键词

T2; R2; indirect and stimulated echo compensation; relaxometry; quantitative imaging; extended phase graph

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Alberta Innovates [201500132] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo evaluate transverse relaxation (T2) and flip angle maps derived from signal pathway modeling of multiple spin echoes using simultaneous or independent T2 and flip angle fitting. MethodsWe examined different approaches to indirect and stimulated echo compensated T2 relaxometry from multiple spin echoes to evaluate both T2 and flip angle accuracy in simulation, phantom, and human brain. Signal pathways were modeled with or without independent flip angle maps using either Bloch simulations, or Extended Phase Graph (EPG) with Fourier or Shinnar-Le Roux approximation of slice profiles. ResultsSlice-selective decay curves differ substantially between models. Inaccurate flip angles are obtained with EPG methods, although T2 values are relatively accurate. Providing measured flip angles to EPG methods yields erroneous T2. Bloch methods improve both T2 and flip angle results. Simultaneous fitting can suffer from flip angle redundancy yielding multiple T2 solutions, particularly in low signal-to-noise ratio cases. ConclusionEPG fitting provides reasonably accurate T2, but is limited by poor accuracy in resulting flip angles, and T2 errors increase when flip angles are provided. Bloch simultaneous fitting of T2 and flip angle provides excellent results, but can be limited by multiple solutions which can be overcome by including a flip angle map. Magn Reson Med 77:2057-2065, 2017. (c) 2016 International Society for MagneticResonance 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