Cargando…

Comparison of q-Space Reconstruction Methods for Undersampled Diffusion Spectrum Imaging Data

PURPOSE: To compare different q-space reconstruction methods for undersampled diffusion spectrum imaging data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the quality of three methods: Mean Apparent Propagator (MAP); Compressed Sensing using Identity (CSI) and Compressed Sensing using Dictionary (CSD) with s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Varela-Mattatall, Gabriel E., Koch, Alexandra, Stirnberg, Rüdiger, Chabert, Steren, Uribe, Sergio, Tejos, Cristian, Stöcker, Tony, Irarrazaval, Pablo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Japanese Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7232027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31080210
http://dx.doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2019-0015
_version_ 1783535294243405824
author Varela-Mattatall, Gabriel E.
Koch, Alexandra
Stirnberg, Rüdiger
Chabert, Steren
Uribe, Sergio
Tejos, Cristian
Stöcker, Tony
Irarrazaval, Pablo
author_facet Varela-Mattatall, Gabriel E.
Koch, Alexandra
Stirnberg, Rüdiger
Chabert, Steren
Uribe, Sergio
Tejos, Cristian
Stöcker, Tony
Irarrazaval, Pablo
author_sort Varela-Mattatall, Gabriel E.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare different q-space reconstruction methods for undersampled diffusion spectrum imaging data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the quality of three methods: Mean Apparent Propagator (MAP); Compressed Sensing using Identity (CSI) and Compressed Sensing using Dictionary (CSD) with simulated data and in vivo acquisitions. We used retrospective undersampling so that the fully sampled reconstruction could be used as ground truth. We used the normalized mean squared error (NMSE) and the Pearson’s correlation coefficient as reconstruction quality indices. Additionally, we evaluated two propagator-based diffusion indices: mean squared displacement and return to zero probability. We also did a visual analysis around the centrum semiovale. RESULTS: All methods had reconstruction errors below 5% with low undersampling factors and with a wide range of noise levels. However, the CSD method had at least 1–2% lower NMSE than the other reconstruction methods at higher noise levels. MAP was the second-best method when using a sufficiently high number of q-space samples. MAP reconstruction showed better propagator-based diffusion indices for in vivo acquisitions. With undersampling factors greater than 4, MAP and CSI have noticeably more reconstruction error than CSD. CONCLUSION: Undersampled data were best reconstructed by means of CSD in simulations and in vivo. MAP was more accurate in the extraction of propagator-based indices, particularly for in vivo data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7232027
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Japanese Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72320272020-05-26 Comparison of q-Space Reconstruction Methods for Undersampled Diffusion Spectrum Imaging Data Varela-Mattatall, Gabriel E. Koch, Alexandra Stirnberg, Rüdiger Chabert, Steren Uribe, Sergio Tejos, Cristian Stöcker, Tony Irarrazaval, Pablo Magn Reson Med Sci Major Paper PURPOSE: To compare different q-space reconstruction methods for undersampled diffusion spectrum imaging data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the quality of three methods: Mean Apparent Propagator (MAP); Compressed Sensing using Identity (CSI) and Compressed Sensing using Dictionary (CSD) with simulated data and in vivo acquisitions. We used retrospective undersampling so that the fully sampled reconstruction could be used as ground truth. We used the normalized mean squared error (NMSE) and the Pearson’s correlation coefficient as reconstruction quality indices. Additionally, we evaluated two propagator-based diffusion indices: mean squared displacement and return to zero probability. We also did a visual analysis around the centrum semiovale. RESULTS: All methods had reconstruction errors below 5% with low undersampling factors and with a wide range of noise levels. However, the CSD method had at least 1–2% lower NMSE than the other reconstruction methods at higher noise levels. MAP was the second-best method when using a sufficiently high number of q-space samples. MAP reconstruction showed better propagator-based diffusion indices for in vivo acquisitions. With undersampling factors greater than 4, MAP and CSI have noticeably more reconstruction error than CSD. CONCLUSION: Undersampled data were best reconstructed by means of CSD in simulations and in vivo. MAP was more accurate in the extraction of propagator-based indices, particularly for in vivo data. Japanese Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2019-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7232027/ /pubmed/31080210 http://dx.doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2019-0015 Text en © 2019 Japanese Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
spellingShingle Major Paper
Varela-Mattatall, Gabriel E.
Koch, Alexandra
Stirnberg, Rüdiger
Chabert, Steren
Uribe, Sergio
Tejos, Cristian
Stöcker, Tony
Irarrazaval, Pablo
Comparison of q-Space Reconstruction Methods for Undersampled Diffusion Spectrum Imaging Data
title Comparison of q-Space Reconstruction Methods for Undersampled Diffusion Spectrum Imaging Data
title_full Comparison of q-Space Reconstruction Methods for Undersampled Diffusion Spectrum Imaging Data
title_fullStr Comparison of q-Space Reconstruction Methods for Undersampled Diffusion Spectrum Imaging Data
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of q-Space Reconstruction Methods for Undersampled Diffusion Spectrum Imaging Data
title_short Comparison of q-Space Reconstruction Methods for Undersampled Diffusion Spectrum Imaging Data
title_sort comparison of q-space reconstruction methods for undersampled diffusion spectrum imaging data
topic Major Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7232027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31080210
http://dx.doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2019-0015
work_keys_str_mv AT varelamattatallgabriele comparisonofqspacereconstructionmethodsforundersampleddiffusionspectrumimagingdata
AT kochalexandra comparisonofqspacereconstructionmethodsforundersampleddiffusionspectrumimagingdata
AT stirnbergrudiger comparisonofqspacereconstructionmethodsforundersampleddiffusionspectrumimagingdata
AT chabertsteren comparisonofqspacereconstructionmethodsforundersampleddiffusionspectrumimagingdata
AT uribesergio comparisonofqspacereconstructionmethodsforundersampleddiffusionspectrumimagingdata
AT tejoscristian comparisonofqspacereconstructionmethodsforundersampleddiffusionspectrumimagingdata
AT stockertony comparisonofqspacereconstructionmethodsforundersampleddiffusionspectrumimagingdata
AT irarrazavalpablo comparisonofqspacereconstructionmethodsforundersampleddiffusionspectrumimagingdata