bioRxivBioengineering
Validation of Data Acquisition and Phase Estimation for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping with a Rotating-Tube Phantom
K. E. Keenan, B. P. Berman, S. Carnicka, S. E. Russek, W.-T. Wang, J. A. Butman, D. L. Pham, J. Dagher
Abstract
PurposeQuantitative 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 ({Delta}{chi}), 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. ApproachWe used a rotating-tube phantom with five tubes ranging from {Delta}{chi}=0.05 ppm to {Delta}{chi}=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. We analyzed errors between measured and expected phase using the probability mass function and Cumulative Distribution Function. ResultsRepeatable 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 multi-echo sequences, a Maximum-Likelihood method was most reliable with Pr(relative error<0.1)=0.97. The most repeatable multi-echo methods outperformed the most repeatable single-echo methods. ConclusionsWe found a wide range of repeatability and reproducibility for off-the-shelf MRI acquisition and phase estimation approaches. The error was dominated in many cases by spatially discontinuous phase unwrapping errors. Any post-processing applied on erroneous phase estimates, such as QSMs 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 {Delta}{chi} estimates.
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
- Multi-echo Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping: How to Combine Echoes for Accuracy and Precision at 3 T
Emma Biondetti, Anita Karsa, … Karin Shmueli·Magnetic Resonance in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Jun 29, 2022
- QSM Reconstruction Challenge 2.0: a realistic in silico head phantom for MRI data simulation and evaluation of susceptibility mapping procedures
José P. Marques, Jakob Meineke, … Ferdinand Schweser·Magnetic Resonance in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Feb 26, 2021
- A geometric anthropomorphic phantom for quantitative susceptibility mapping: accuracy and repeatability
Padriac Hooper, Jin Jin, … Markus Barth·bioRxiv·Sep 2, 2026
- 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
- 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
- Evaluation of phantom doping materials in quantitative susceptibility mapping