Dataset Information

Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom.

ABSTRACT: Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) is an MRI tool with the potential to reveal pathological changes from magnetic susceptibility measurements. Before phase data can be used to recover susceptibility (Δχ), the QSM process begins with two steps: data acquisition and phase estimation. We assess the performance of these steps, when applied without user intervention, on several variations of a phantom imaging task. We used a rotating-tube phantom with five tubes ranging from Δχ=0.05 ppm to Δχ=0.336 ppm. MRI data was acquired at nine angles of rotation for four different pulse sequences. The images were processed by 10 phase estimation algorithms including Laplacian, region-growing, branch-cut, temporal unwrapping, and maximum-likelihood methods, resulting in approximately 90 different combinations of data acquisition and phase estimation methods. We analyzed errors between measured and expected phases using the probability mass function and Cumulative Distribution Function. Repeatable acquisition and estimation methods were identified based on the probability of relative phase errors. For single-echo GRE and segmented EPI sequences, a region-growing method was most reliable with Pr (relative error <0.1) = 0.95 and 0.90, respectively. For multiecho sequences, a maximum-likelihood method was most reliable with Pr (relative error <0.1) = 0.97. The most repeatable multiecho methods outperformed the most repeatable single-echo methods. We found a wide range of repeatability and reproducibility for off-the-shelf MRI acquisition and phase estimation approaches, and this variability may prevent the techniques from being widely integrated in clinical workflows. The error was dominated in many cases by spatially discontinuous phase unwrapping errors. Any postprocessing applied on erroneous phase estimates, such as QSM's background field removal and dipole inversion, would suffer from error propagation. Our paradigm identifies methods that yield consistent and accurate phase estimates that would ultimately yield consistent and accurate Δχ estimates.

SUBMITTER: Keenan KE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8635951 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets