4.4 Article

A theoretical validation of the B-matrix spatial distribution approach to diffusion tensor imaging

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 1-6

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2016.10.002

关键词

MRI; DTI; Phantoms; Diffusion; Anisotropy

资金

  1. National Centre of Research and Development [PBS2/A2/16/2013]
  2. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education
  3. Marian Smoluchowski Cracow Scientific Consortium - KNOW

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recently presented B-matrix Spatial Distribution (BSD) approach is a calibration technique which derives the actual distribution of the B-matrix in space. It is claimed that taking into account the spatial variability of the B-matrix improves the accuracy of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). The purpose of this study is to verify this approach theoretically through computer simulations. Assuming three different spatial distributions of the B-matrix, diffusion weighted signals were calculated for the six orientations of a model anisotropic phantom. Subsequently two variants of the BSD calibration were performed for each of the three cases; one with the assumption of high uniformity of the model phantom (uBSD-DTI) and the other taking into account imperfections in phantom structure (BSD-DTI). Several cases of varying degrees of phantom uniformity were analyzed and the distributions of the B-matrix obtained were used for the calculation of the diffusion tensor of a model isotropic phantom. The results were compared with standard diffusion tensor calculation. The simulations confirmed the improvement of accuracy in the determination of the diffusion tensor after the calibration. BSD-DTI improves accuracy independent of both the degree of uniformity of the phantom and the inhomogeneity of the B-matrix. In cases of a relatively good uniformity of the phantom and minor distortions in the spatial distribution of the B -matrix, the uBSD-DTI approach is sufficient. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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