The translation of MRS to clinical practice has been impeded by the lack of technical standardization. There are multiple methods of acquisition, post-processing, and analysis whose details greatly impact the interpretation of the results. These details are often not fully reported, making it difficult to assess MRS studies on a standardized basis. This hampers the reviewing of manuscripts, limits the reproducibility of study results, and complicates meta-analysis of the literature. In this paper a consensus group of MRS experts provides minimum guidelines for the reporting of MRS methods and results, including the standardized description of MRS hardware, data acquisition, analysis, and quality assessment. This consensus statement describes each of these requirements in detail and includes a checklist to assist authors and journal reviewers and to provide a practical way for journal editors to ensure that MRS studies are reported in full.
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging (MRSI) is a clinical imaging modality for measuring tissue metabolite levels in-vivo. An accurate estimation of spectral parameters allows for better assessment of spectral quality and metabolite concentration levels. The current gold standard quantification method is the LCModel -a commercial fitting tool. However, this fails for spectra having poor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or a large number of artifacts. This paper introduces a framework based on random forest regression for accurate estimation of the output parameters of a model based analysis of MR spectroscopy data. The goal of our proposed framework is to learn the spectral features from a training set comprising of different variations of both simulated and in-vivo brain spectra and then use this learning for the subsequent metabolite quantification. Experiments involve training and testing on simulated and in-vivo human brain spectra. We estimate parameters such as concentration of metabolites and compare our results with that from the LCModel.
Purpose The linear change of the water proton resonance frequency shift (PRFS) with temperature is used to monitor temperature change based on the temporal difference of image phase. Here, the effect of motion‐induced susceptibility artifacts on the phase difference was studied in the context of mild radio frequency hyperthermia in the pelvis. Methods First, the respiratory‐induced field variations were disentangled from digestive gas motion in the pelvis. The projection onto dipole fields (PDF) as well as the Laplacian boundary value (LBV) algorithm were applied on the phase difference data to eliminate motion‐induced susceptibility artifacts. Both background field removal (BFR) algorithms were studied using simulations of susceptibility artifacts, a phantom heating experiment, and volunteer and patient heating data. Results Respiratory‐induced field variations were negligible in the presence of the filled water bolus. Even though LBV and PDF showed comparable results for most data, LBV seemed more robust in our data sets. Some data sets suggested that PDF tends to overestimate the background field, thus removing phase attributed to temperature. The BFR methods even corrected for susceptibility variations induced by a subvoxel displacement of the phantom. The method yielded successful artifact correction in 2 out of 4 patient treatment data sets during the entire treatment duration of mild RF heating of cervical cancer. The heating pattern corresponded well with temperature probe data. Conclusion The application of background field removal methods in PRFS‐based MR thermometry has great potential in various heating applications and body regions to reduce motion‐induced susceptibility artifacts that originate outside the region of interest, while conserving temperature‐induced PRFS. In addition, BFR automatically removes up to a first‐order spatial B 0 drift.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.