Evaluation of multi-channel phase reconstruction methods for quantitative susceptibility mapping on postmortem human brain

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER
Autores
OTSUKA, Fabio Seiji
AZEVEDO, Jose Henrique Monteiro
SALMON, Carlos Ernesto Garrido
Citação
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE OPEN, v.14-15, article ID 100097, 12p, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) is an established Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technique with high potential in brain iron studies associated to several neurodegenerative diseases. Unlike other MRI techniques, QSM relies on phase images to estimate tissue's relative susceptibility, therefore requiring a reliable phase data. Phase images from a multi-channel acquisition should be reconstructed in a proper way. On this work it was compared the performance of combination of phase matching algorithms (MCPC3D-S and VRC) and phase combination methods based on a complex weighted sum of phases, considering the magnitude at different powers (k = 0 to 4) as the weighting factor. These reconstruction methods were applied in two datasets: a simulated brain dataset for a 4-coil array and data of 22 postmortem subjects acquired at a 7T scanner using a 32 channels coil. For the simulated dataset, differences between the ground truth and the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) were evaluated. For both simulated and postmortem data, the mean (MS) and standard deviation (SD) of susceptibility values of five deep gray matter regions were calculated. For the postmortem subjects, MS and SD were statistically compared across all subjects. A qualitative analysis indicated no differences between methods, except for the Adaptive approach on postmortem data, which showed intense artifacts. In the 20% noise level case, the simulated data showed increased noise in central regions. Quantitative analysis showed that both MS and SD were not statistically different when comparing k = 1 and k = 2 on postmortem brain images, however visual inspection showed some boundaries artifacts on k = 2. Furthermore, the RMSE decreased (on regions near the coils) and increased (on central regions and on overall QSM) with increasing k. In conclusion, for reconstruction of phase images from multiple coils with no reference available, alternative methods are needed. In this study it was found that overall, the phase combination with k = 1 is preferred over other powers of k.
Palavras-chave
Magnetic resonance imaging, Quantitative susceptibility mapping, MRI phase reconstruction, Postmortem
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/58046
Referências
  1. Abdulla SU, 2020, MAGN RESON IMAGING, V74, P139, DOI 10.1016/j.mri.2020.08.009
  2. Chen ZL, 2010, NEUROIMAGE, V49, P1289, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.071
  3. Eckstein K, 2018, MAGN RESON MED, V79, P2996, DOI 10.1002/mrm.26963
  4. Haacke EM, 2015, MAGN RESON IMAGING, V33, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.mri.2014.09.004
  5. Hammond KE, 2008, NEUROIMAGE, V39, P1682, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.037
  6. Langkammer C, 2012, NEUROIMAGE, V62, P1593, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.049
  7. Li W, 2017, NMR BIOMED, V30, DOI 10.1002/nbm.3540
  8. Li W, 2012, NEUROIMAGE, V59, P2088, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.038
  9. Liu CL, 2010, MAGN RESON MED, V63, P1471, DOI 10.1002/mrm.22482
  10. Liu T, 2011, MAGN RESON MED, V66, P777, DOI 10.1002/mrm.22816
  11. Liu T, 2011, NMR BIOMED, V24, P1129, DOI 10.1002/nbm.1670
  12. Lu K, 2008, MAGN RESON IMAGING, V26, P142, DOI 10.1016/j.mri.2007.04.015
  13. Marques JP, 2021, MAGN RESON MED, V86, P526, DOI 10.1002/mrm.28716
  14. Barbosa JHO, 2015, MAGN RESON IMAGING, V33, P559, DOI 10.1016/j.mri.2015.02.021
  15. Parker DL, 2014, MAGN RESON MED, V72, P563, DOI 10.1002/mrm.24932
  16. Reichenbach JR, 2015, CLIN NEURORADIOL, V25, P225, DOI 10.1007/s00062-015-0432-9
  17. Robinson SD, 2017, NMR BIOMED, V30, DOI 10.1002/nbm.3601
  18. Robinson SD, 2017, MAGN RESON MED, V77, P318, DOI 10.1002/mrm.26093
  19. ROEMER PB, 1990, MAGNET RESON MED, V16, P192, DOI 10.1002/mrm.1910160203
  20. Vegh V, 2016, MAGN RESON MED, V76, P1469, DOI 10.1002/mrm.26057
  21. Wang CY, 2020, NEUROIMAGE, V222, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117216
  22. Wang Y, 2015, MAGN RESON MED, V73, P82, DOI 10.1002/mrm.25358
  23. Wharton S, 2015, MAGN RESON MED, V73, P1258, DOI 10.1002/mrm.25189
  24. Zheng WL, 2013, NEUROIMAGE, V78, P68, DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.022

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MPT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/InRad
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/44