Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom
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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Radiology Research and Practice |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/1898461 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832553692256010240 |
|---|---|
| author | Kathryn E. Keenan Ben P. Berman Slávka Rýger Stephen E. Russek Wen-Tung Wang John A. Butman Dzung L. Pham Joseph Dagher |
| author_facet | Kathryn E. Keenan Ben P. Berman Slávka Rýger Stephen E. Russek Wen-Tung Wang John A. Butman Dzung L. Pham Joseph Dagher |
| author_sort | Kathryn E. Keenan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-838459f75c5941f7a2c0fd771f404960 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-195X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Radiology Research and Practice |
| spelling | doaj-art-838459f75c5941f7a2c0fd771f4049602025-02-03T05:53:26ZengWileyRadiology Research and Practice2090-195X2021-01-01202110.1155/2021/1898461Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube PhantomKathryn E. Keenan0Ben P. Berman1Slávka Rýger2Stephen E. Russek3Wen-Tung Wang4John A. Butman5Dzung L. Pham6Joseph Dagher7National Institute of Standards and TechnologyThe MITRE CorporationNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyHenry M. Jackson FoundationClinical CenterHenry M. Jackson FoundationThe MITRE CorporationQuantitative 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/1898461 |
| spellingShingle | Kathryn E. Keenan Ben P. Berman Slávka Rýger Stephen E. Russek Wen-Tung Wang John A. Butman Dzung L. Pham Joseph Dagher Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom Radiology Research and Practice |
| title | Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom |
| title_full | Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom |
| title_short | Comparison of Phase Estimation Methods for Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Using a Rotating-Tube Phantom |
| title_sort | comparison of phase estimation methods for quantitative susceptibility mapping using a rotating tube phantom |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/1898461 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kathrynekeenan comparisonofphaseestimationmethodsforquantitativesusceptibilitymappingusingarotatingtubephantom AT benpberman comparisonofphaseestimationmethodsforquantitativesusceptibilitymappingusingarotatingtubephantom AT slavkaryger comparisonofphaseestimationmethodsforquantitativesusceptibilitymappingusingarotatingtubephantom AT stephenerussek comparisonofphaseestimationmethodsforquantitativesusceptibilitymappingusingarotatingtubephantom AT wentungwang comparisonofphaseestimationmethodsforquantitativesusceptibilitymappingusingarotatingtubephantom AT johnabutman comparisonofphaseestimationmethodsforquantitativesusceptibilitymappingusingarotatingtubephantom AT dzunglpham comparisonofphaseestimationmethodsforquantitativesusceptibilitymappingusingarotatingtubephantom AT josephdagher comparisonofphaseestimationmethodsforquantitativesusceptibilitymappingusingarotatingtubephantom |