4.4 Article

An in vivo study of the orientation-dependent and independent components of transverse relaxation rates in white matter

期刊

NMR IN BIOMEDICINE
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 1780-1790

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/nbm.3616

关键词

white matter; R-2*; R-2; fibre orientation

资金

  1. Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging in the Netherlands
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) Mobility grant [132821]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) provides information that allows the estimation of white-matter (WM) fibre orientation and distribution, but it does not provide information about myelin density, fibre concentration or fibre size within each voxel. On the other hand, quantitative relaxation contrasts (like the apparent transverse relaxation, R-2*) offer iron and myelin-related contrast, but their dependence on the orientation of microstructure with respect to the applied magnetic field, B-0, is often neglected. The aim of this work was to combine the fibre orientation information retrieved from the DWI acquisition and the sensitivity to microstructural information from quantitative relaxation parameters. The in vivo measured quantitative transverse relaxation maps (R-2 and R-2*) were decomposed into their orientation-dependent and independent components, using the DWI fibre orientation information as prior knowledge. The analysis focused on major WM fibre bundles such as the forceps major (FMj), forceps minor (FMn), cingulum (CG) and corticospinal tracts (CST). The orientation-dependent R-2 parameters, despite their small size (0-1.5 Hz), showed higher variability across different fibre populations, while those derived from R-2*, although larger (3.1-4.5 Hz), were mostly bundle-independent. With this article, we have, for the first time, attempted the in vivo characterization of the orientation-(in)dependent components of the transverse relaxation rates and demonstrated that the orientation of WM fibres influences both R-2 and R-2* contrasts.

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

4.4
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