Cargando…
A comparison between equations describing in vivo MT: The effects of noise and sequence parameters
Quantitative models of magnetization transfer (MT) allow the estimation of physical properties of tissue which are thought to reflect myelination, and are therefore likely to be useful for clinical application. Although a model describing a two-pool system under continuous wave-saturation has been a...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2008
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323944/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191599 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2007.12.012 |
_version_ | 1782152697094340608 |
---|---|
author | Cercignani, Mara Barker, Gareth J. |
author_facet | Cercignani, Mara Barker, Gareth J. |
author_sort | Cercignani, Mara |
collection | PubMed |
description | Quantitative models of magnetization transfer (MT) allow the estimation of physical properties of tissue which are thought to reflect myelination, and are therefore likely to be useful for clinical application. Although a model describing a two-pool system under continuous wave-saturation has been available for two decades, generalizing such a model to pulsed MT, and therefore to in vivo applications, is not straightforward, and only recently have a range of equations predicting the outcome of pulsed MT experiments been proposed. These solutions of the 2-pool model are based on differing assumptions and involve differing degrees of complexity, so their individual advantages and limitations are not always obvious. This paper is concerned with the comparison of three differing signal equations. After reviewing the theory behind each of them, their accuracy and precision is investigated using numerical simulations under variable experimental conditions such as degree of T(1)-weighting of the acquisition sequence and SNR, and the consistency of numerical results is tested using in vivo data. We show that while in conditions of minimal T(1)-weighting, high SNR, and large duty cycle the solutions of the three equations are consistent, they have a different tolerance to deviations from the basic assumptions behind their development, which should be taken into account when designing a quantitative MT protocol. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2323944 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2008 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-23239442008-05-22 A comparison between equations describing in vivo MT: The effects of noise and sequence parameters Cercignani, Mara Barker, Gareth J. J Magn Reson Article Quantitative models of magnetization transfer (MT) allow the estimation of physical properties of tissue which are thought to reflect myelination, and are therefore likely to be useful for clinical application. Although a model describing a two-pool system under continuous wave-saturation has been available for two decades, generalizing such a model to pulsed MT, and therefore to in vivo applications, is not straightforward, and only recently have a range of equations predicting the outcome of pulsed MT experiments been proposed. These solutions of the 2-pool model are based on differing assumptions and involve differing degrees of complexity, so their individual advantages and limitations are not always obvious. This paper is concerned with the comparison of three differing signal equations. After reviewing the theory behind each of them, their accuracy and precision is investigated using numerical simulations under variable experimental conditions such as degree of T(1)-weighting of the acquisition sequence and SNR, and the consistency of numerical results is tested using in vivo data. We show that while in conditions of minimal T(1)-weighting, high SNR, and large duty cycle the solutions of the three equations are consistent, they have a different tolerance to deviations from the basic assumptions behind their development, which should be taken into account when designing a quantitative MT protocol. Elsevier 2008-04 /pmc/articles/PMC2323944/ /pubmed/18191599 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2007.12.012 Text en © 2008 Elsevier Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Open Access under CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) license |
spellingShingle | Article Cercignani, Mara Barker, Gareth J. A comparison between equations describing in vivo MT: The effects of noise and sequence parameters |
title | A comparison between equations describing in vivo MT: The effects of noise and sequence parameters |
title_full | A comparison between equations describing in vivo MT: The effects of noise and sequence parameters |
title_fullStr | A comparison between equations describing in vivo MT: The effects of noise and sequence parameters |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between equations describing in vivo MT: The effects of noise and sequence parameters |
title_short | A comparison between equations describing in vivo MT: The effects of noise and sequence parameters |
title_sort | comparison between equations describing in vivo mt: the effects of noise and sequence parameters |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323944/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191599 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2007.12.012 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cercignanimara acomparisonbetweenequationsdescribinginvivomttheeffectsofnoiseandsequenceparameters AT barkergarethj acomparisonbetweenequationsdescribinginvivomttheeffectsofnoiseandsequenceparameters AT cercignanimara comparisonbetweenequationsdescribinginvivomttheeffectsofnoiseandsequenceparameters AT barkergarethj comparisonbetweenequationsdescribinginvivomttheeffectsofnoiseandsequenceparameters |