Multi-echo Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping: How to Combine Echoes for Accuracy and Precision at 3 T
Emma BiondettiiD, Anita KarsaiD, Francesco GrussuiD, Marco BattistoniD, Marios C. YiannakasiD, David Lee ThomasiD, Karin ShmueliiD
Abstract
PurposeTo compare different multi-echo combination methods for MRI quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). Given the current lack of consensus, we aimed to elucidate how to optimally combine multi-echo gradient-recalled echo (GRE) signal phase information, either before or after applying Laplacian-base methods (LBMs) for phase unwrapping or background field removal. MethodsMulti-echo GRE data were simulated in a numerical head phantom, and multiecho GRE images were acquired at 3 T in ten healthy volunteers. To enable image-based estimation of GRE signal noise, five volunteers were scanned twice in the same session without repositioning. Five QSM processing pipelines were designed: one applied nonlinear phase fitting over echo times (TEs) before LBMs; two applied LBMs to the TE-dependent phase and then combined multiple TEs via either TE-weighted or signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)-weighted averaging; two calculated TE-dependent susceptibility maps via either multi-step or single-step QSM and then combined multiple TEs via magnitude-weighted averaging. Results from different pipelines were compared using visual inspection; summary statistics of susceptibility in deep gray matter, white matter, and venous regions; phase noise maps (error propagation theory); and, in the healthy volunteers, regional fixed bias analysis (Bland-Altman) and regional differences between the means (nonparametric tests). ResultsNonlinearly fitting the multi-echo phase over TEs before applying LBMs provided the highest regional accuracy of{chi} and the lowest phase noise propagation compared to averaging the LBM-processed TE-dependent phase. This result was especially pertinent in high-susceptibility venous regions. ConclusionFor multi-echo QSM, we recommend combining the signal phase by nonlinear fitting before applying LBMs.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 13
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Field percentile
- top 19%
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Validation of Data Acquisition and Phase Estimation for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping with a Rotating-Tube Phantom
K. E. Keenan, B. P. Berman, … J. Dagher·bioRxiv·Jun 29, 2021
- QSMxT: Robust Masking and Artefact Reduction for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping
Ashley Wilton Stewart, Simon Robinson, … Steffen Bollmann·Magnetic Resonance in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Oct 22, 2021
- Investigating the Effect of Flow Compensation and Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Method on the Accuracy of Venous Susceptibility Measurement
Ronja Berg, Christine Preibisch, … Emma Biondetti·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Jul 14, 2021
- Abdominal single-step quantitative susceptibility mapping with spherical mean value filter and structure prior-based regularization
A. Abyzov, B. E. Van Beers, P. Garteiser·bioRxiv·Jul 15, 2020
- The Effect of Oblique Image Acquisition on the Accuracy of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping and a Robust Tilt Correction Method
O. C. Kiersnowski, A. Karsa, … K. Shmueli·bioRxiv·Nov 30, 2021
- The impact of coregistration of gradient recalled echo images on quantitative susceptibility and R2* mapping at 7T
S. Choi, X. Li, D. Harrison·bioRxiv·Jan 24, 2019