bioRxivBiophysicsPreprint
A geometric anthropomorphic phantom for quantitative susceptibility mapping: accuracy and repeatability
Padriac HooperiD, Jin JiniD, Kieran O’BrieniD, Markus BarthiD
Abstract
Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) relies on a tissue's underlying macroscopic geometry to lead to measurable orientation-dependent field perturbations. To understand and assess QSM error in vivo, anthropomorphic phantoms provide a useful model that mimic the electromagnetic properties and morphology of underlying tissue. Herein, we designed and manufactured an MRI compatible anthropomorphic phantom with cylindrical and spheroid compartments containing realistic susceptibilities to mimic hemorrhages, calcifications, and blood vessels. We estimated accuracy ({epsilon}, bias, RMSE) and repeatability (RC) of MEDI-susceptibility measurements within ROIs. We evaluated voxel-based agreement to validate susceptibility mapping under different acquisition conditions (3T versus 7T) and reconstruction algorithms (COSMOS versus MEDI). Reliable MEDI-based susceptibility measurements were obtained from ellipsoids but not from straws. The ellipsoids (|{epsilon}| = 0.007 to 0.083 ppm at 3T; 0.050 to 0.118 ppm at 7T) were more accurate than the straws (|{epsilon}| = 0.084 to 0.190 ppm at 3T; 0.105 to 0.160 ppm at 7T). The repeatability coefficient across all 6 ROIs (RC = 0.652 ppm at 3T; 0.459 ppm at 7T) was substantially larger than across the 4 ellipsoid ROIs only (RC' = 0.168 ppm at 3T; 0.141 ppm at 7T). The accuracy at 3T (bias = -0.002 ppm, RMSE = 0.082 ppm) was better than the accuracy at 7T (bias = -0.056 ppm, RMSE = 0.092 ppm). Using voxels from the 4 ellipsoid ROIs, we observed excellent agreement between COSMOS and MEDI susceptibility maps at 3T, with linear regression of y=1.00x-0.01 (r=0.99). We observed some underestimation of MEDI susceptibility maps relative to COSMOS at 7T, with linear regression and y=0.93x-0.04 (r=0.99). The results imply that QSM reconstructions are reliable with 3T scanners but can be challenging with 7T scanners at high magnetic susceptibilities.
- Citations
- 0
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
- Evaluation of phantom doping materials in quantitative susceptibility mapping
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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