SU‐E‐I‐131: Uniformity Evaluation of GRAPPA and MSENSE Parallel Imaging Reconstruction Algorithm

F. Goerner, Geoffrey D Clarke, T. Duong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Parallel Imaging (PI) MRI protocols lead to image characteristics that differ from conventional MR images. An accurate and simple method for determining image intensity uniformity in PI is lacking. This study examines five methods of uniformity measurement with PI. Accurate uniformity metrics decrease with increasing R‐value. Methods: A phantom was used in a 12 channel head coil and 3T MRI with TR 1200ms, TE 76 ms, 5 slices, 5 mm thickness, 1 mm gap, FOV 220×220 mm, 256×256 matrix, ETL 16, BW 122 Hz/pixel, axially. Non‐PI TSE sequence, PI method GRAPPA and PI method mSENSE with R: 2, 3 and 4 were inspected. Five uniformity measurement methods were investigated using equations involving: A) Minimum (Smin) and maximum signal pixels (Smax) calculated, PIUA B) Mean pixel value computed and each pixel grouped by: Group1=+/−10% of mean, Group2=+/−10%–20% of mean, Group3=more or less than 20% of mean. The number of pixels per group was used to compute: PIUB C) Same as A but Smax and Smin were 0.15% ROIs. D) This was the NAAD method E) The overall mean (S1) and the mean of 17, 7×7 square ROIs dispersed in the phantom were used. The average of each ROI was taken and PIUE was calculated. Two way ANOVA analysis evaluated reconstruction method and R‐value. Results: Methods D and E indicated increase in uniformity with R‐value at R=3. Two‐way ANOVA results indicated that uniformity measurements A–D were dependent on R‐ value. No uniformity method showed reconstruction method dependence. Conclusions: Methods A and C are similar, A is more sensitive. Methods E and D are inaccurate. Method B gives accurate information but is not as sensitive as A. Method A should be used to obtain the most precise uniformity measurement with PI protocols.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3426
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Analysis of Variance
Head

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐I‐131 : Uniformity Evaluation of GRAPPA and MSENSE Parallel Imaging Reconstruction Algorithm. / Goerner, F.; Clarke, Geoffrey D; Duong, T.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2011, p. 3426.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Goerner, F. ; Clarke, Geoffrey D ; Duong, T. / SU‐E‐I‐131 : Uniformity Evaluation of GRAPPA and MSENSE Parallel Imaging Reconstruction Algorithm. In: Medical Physics. 2011 ; Vol. 38, No. 6. pp. 3426.
@article{c40d29fa32e64215824dda07c62e2c0e,
title = "SU‐E‐I‐131: Uniformity Evaluation of GRAPPA and MSENSE Parallel Imaging Reconstruction Algorithm",
abstract = "Purpose: Parallel Imaging (PI) MRI protocols lead to image characteristics that differ from conventional MR images. An accurate and simple method for determining image intensity uniformity in PI is lacking. This study examines five methods of uniformity measurement with PI. Accurate uniformity metrics decrease with increasing R‐value. Methods: A phantom was used in a 12 channel head coil and 3T MRI with TR 1200ms, TE 76 ms, 5 slices, 5 mm thickness, 1 mm gap, FOV 220×220 mm, 256×256 matrix, ETL 16, BW 122 Hz/pixel, axially. Non‐PI TSE sequence, PI method GRAPPA and PI method mSENSE with R: 2, 3 and 4 were inspected. Five uniformity measurement methods were investigated using equations involving: A) Minimum (Smin) and maximum signal pixels (Smax) calculated, PIUA B) Mean pixel value computed and each pixel grouped by: Group1=+/−10{\%} of mean, Group2=+/−10{\%}–20{\%} of mean, Group3=more or less than 20{\%} of mean. The number of pixels per group was used to compute: PIUB C) Same as A but Smax and Smin were 0.15{\%} ROIs. D) This was the NAAD method E) The overall mean (S1) and the mean of 17, 7×7 square ROIs dispersed in the phantom were used. The average of each ROI was taken and PIUE was calculated. Two way ANOVA analysis evaluated reconstruction method and R‐value. Results: Methods D and E indicated increase in uniformity with R‐value at R=3. Two‐way ANOVA results indicated that uniformity measurements A–D were dependent on R‐ value. No uniformity method showed reconstruction method dependence. Conclusions: Methods A and C are similar, A is more sensitive. Methods E and D are inaccurate. Method B gives accurate information but is not as sensitive as A. Method A should be used to obtain the most precise uniformity measurement with PI protocols.",
author = "F. Goerner and Clarke, {Geoffrey D} and T. Duong",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1118/1.3611705",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "3426",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐I‐131

T2 - Uniformity Evaluation of GRAPPA and MSENSE Parallel Imaging Reconstruction Algorithm

AU - Goerner, F.

AU - Clarke, Geoffrey D

AU - Duong, T.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Purpose: Parallel Imaging (PI) MRI protocols lead to image characteristics that differ from conventional MR images. An accurate and simple method for determining image intensity uniformity in PI is lacking. This study examines five methods of uniformity measurement with PI. Accurate uniformity metrics decrease with increasing R‐value. Methods: A phantom was used in a 12 channel head coil and 3T MRI with TR 1200ms, TE 76 ms, 5 slices, 5 mm thickness, 1 mm gap, FOV 220×220 mm, 256×256 matrix, ETL 16, BW 122 Hz/pixel, axially. Non‐PI TSE sequence, PI method GRAPPA and PI method mSENSE with R: 2, 3 and 4 were inspected. Five uniformity measurement methods were investigated using equations involving: A) Minimum (Smin) and maximum signal pixels (Smax) calculated, PIUA B) Mean pixel value computed and each pixel grouped by: Group1=+/−10% of mean, Group2=+/−10%–20% of mean, Group3=more or less than 20% of mean. The number of pixels per group was used to compute: PIUB C) Same as A but Smax and Smin were 0.15% ROIs. D) This was the NAAD method E) The overall mean (S1) and the mean of 17, 7×7 square ROIs dispersed in the phantom were used. The average of each ROI was taken and PIUE was calculated. Two way ANOVA analysis evaluated reconstruction method and R‐value. Results: Methods D and E indicated increase in uniformity with R‐value at R=3. Two‐way ANOVA results indicated that uniformity measurements A–D were dependent on R‐ value. No uniformity method showed reconstruction method dependence. Conclusions: Methods A and C are similar, A is more sensitive. Methods E and D are inaccurate. Method B gives accurate information but is not as sensitive as A. Method A should be used to obtain the most precise uniformity measurement with PI protocols.

AB - Purpose: Parallel Imaging (PI) MRI protocols lead to image characteristics that differ from conventional MR images. An accurate and simple method for determining image intensity uniformity in PI is lacking. This study examines five methods of uniformity measurement with PI. Accurate uniformity metrics decrease with increasing R‐value. Methods: A phantom was used in a 12 channel head coil and 3T MRI with TR 1200ms, TE 76 ms, 5 slices, 5 mm thickness, 1 mm gap, FOV 220×220 mm, 256×256 matrix, ETL 16, BW 122 Hz/pixel, axially. Non‐PI TSE sequence, PI method GRAPPA and PI method mSENSE with R: 2, 3 and 4 were inspected. Five uniformity measurement methods were investigated using equations involving: A) Minimum (Smin) and maximum signal pixels (Smax) calculated, PIUA B) Mean pixel value computed and each pixel grouped by: Group1=+/−10% of mean, Group2=+/−10%–20% of mean, Group3=more or less than 20% of mean. The number of pixels per group was used to compute: PIUB C) Same as A but Smax and Smin were 0.15% ROIs. D) This was the NAAD method E) The overall mean (S1) and the mean of 17, 7×7 square ROIs dispersed in the phantom were used. The average of each ROI was taken and PIUE was calculated. Two way ANOVA analysis evaluated reconstruction method and R‐value. Results: Methods D and E indicated increase in uniformity with R‐value at R=3. Two‐way ANOVA results indicated that uniformity measurements A–D were dependent on R‐ value. No uniformity method showed reconstruction method dependence. Conclusions: Methods A and C are similar, A is more sensitive. Methods E and D are inaccurate. Method B gives accurate information but is not as sensitive as A. Method A should be used to obtain the most precise uniformity measurement with PI protocols.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024782198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024782198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3611705

DO - 10.1118/1.3611705

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024782198

VL - 38

SP - 3426

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -